this post was submitted on 30 May 2024

373 points (98.7% liked)

News

23311 readers

4052 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

dezmd@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

373

Joe Biden is correct that violent crime is near a 50-year low (www.poynter.org)

submitted 5 months ago by JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee to c/news@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15948872

Joe Biden is correct that violent crime is near a 50-year low

all 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 56 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

One very interesting aspect of this is that most people do notice if the crime rate is lower in their area, but are still likely to complain that the crime rate is too high generally, even if they don't see that in their own local community.

I attribute this directly to 24-hour cable news, which tries to grab our attention by telling us how bad everything is. I wonder if any study has tried to correlate the public's perception of crime to where they get their news.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/

While perceptions of rising crime at the national level are common, fewer Americans believe crime is up in their own communities. In every Gallup crime survey since the 1990s, Americans have been much less likely to say crime is up in their area than to say the same about crime nationally.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago

Same exact thing is happening with the economy:

The vast majority of those surveyed — 68% — said it was becoming harder for the average person to get ahead, while nearly half of respondents said their own finances were moving in the right direction.

We are cripplingly addicted to myopic sensationalism, and the death of local news means that as information consumers we're increasingly hypnotized by national news corporations who have no roots or stake in local communities and who thrive on rage bait. Put simply, there's no localized and tempered source of information that can balance out the neverending national panic.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Violent crime isn't all crime though. If someone sees discarded needles every day on the street, they aren't that greatful when you say "at least you weren't mugged."

If you can't leave packages at your front door, you don't care as much that there was only 1 drive by shooting in the area.

You won't get stabbed on the subway, but you will get a scam call and 3 scam texts on your ride.

[–] s_s@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Violent crime isn't the only crime that results in violence either.

Road deaths and injuries are way up and prosecution for killing someone with a car is constantly excused and dismissed even as people get more negligent (screen use) and risky behind the wheel.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 38 points 5 months ago (3 children)

“You risk your lives every day for the safety of the people you don’t even know. That’s why each of you, each and every one of you, is a hero. It’s no accident that violent crime is near a record 50-year low.”

I find the actual quote kind of problematic on multiple levels. ACAB aside, not every cop is a good guy let alone a hero.

And he is crediting police with a record 50-year low? I don’t buy that.

But yes, the perception that Republicans are “tough on crime” needs to go away cause their fear mongering has nothing to do with actual crime prevention.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (3 children)

it's also just wrong.

It's the lead folks. Biden should be crediting the EPA.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Something about causality and correlation…

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Again, it's not been shown to be a significant factor in the drop in crime in the 20th century. There's more explanation needed than just lead.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166046222000667?via%3Dihub

The lead-crime hypothesis: A meta-analysis

Does lead pollution increase crime? We perform the first meta-analysis of the effect of lead on crime, pooling 542 estimates from 24 studies. The effect of lead is overstated in the literature due to publication bias. Our main estimates of the mean effect sizes are a partial correlation of 0.16, and an elasticity of 0.09. Our estimates suggest the abatement of lead pollution may be responsible for 7–28% of the fall in homicide in the US. Given the historically higher urban lead levels, reduced lead pollution accounted for 6–20% of the convergence in US urban and rural crime rates. Lead increases crime, but does not explain the majority of the fall in crime observed in some countries in the 20th century. Additional explanations are needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DA_2007_report_published_by%2C%25_decline_in_violent_crime%22.?wprov=sfla1

Systematic reviews / meta-analysis

The first meta-analysis of the lead-crime hypothesis was published in 2022. "The Lead-Crime Hypothesis: A Meta-Analysis", authored by Anthony Higney, Nick Hanley, and Mirko Moro consolidates findings of 24 studies on the subject. It found that there is substantial evidence linking lead exposure to a heightened risk of criminal behavior, particularly violent crimes. This aligns with earlier research suggesting lead exposure may foster impulsive and aggressive tendencies, potential precursors to violent offenses. The study concluded that, while a correlation between declining lead pollution and declining criminality is supported by research, it is likely not a significant factor in reduced crime rates, and that the link is generally overstated in lead-crime literature.

The study's implications point towards the potential benefits of reducing lead exposure to decrease crime rates. Such reductions could be achieved through initiatives like removing lead from products like gasoline and paint, water pipes and enhancing lead abatement measures in schools and residences.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Thanks for that.

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

So, you say biden is killing the small arms industry?

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think saying things like that is also meant to be inspiring. Like when you tell all the kids on a hockey team that they're great and they're gonna kick ass out on the ice, but you know who they're about to play and they don't stand a chance. But who knows, maybe telling them they're great will get one or two of them to dream about being a future hockey hero, and they'll get out on the ice and really kick some ass for once - make that extra pass, hit the net for a shot, or hold off on that big, useless, cross-check to the head that would put them in the sin bin for 5 minutes.

If the kids can dream, so can you, right?

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I know that he has to say what he said regardless of if it’s true or not. But the problem is that many cops are actual bad guys.

If a third of your hockey team is perfectly capable of playing well but spends the whole game fighting and abusing their spouse, saying 100% of the team is doing great just gives validation to the bad apples.

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Maybe you'll inspire those bad apples to be great.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago

No, bad apples spoil the bunch. that's kinda the whole thing about that idiom

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

And he is crediting police with a record 50-year low? I don’t buy that.

Neither should you - if it's safe for you to walk the streets the pig is the last people on the planet you should thank.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That doesn't really matter when the media knows that the more it reports on lurid crime, the more people pay attention, meaning the more they can charge for advertising.

The consumer of commercial news is not the customer, they're the product.

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Mmm… well it does matter from the context that actual violence is down. When we’re talking about violent crimes.

It doesn’t matter when talking about this other problem, that the media is essentially a constitutionally protected capitalism and greed factory.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It doesn't matter in terms of what people believe, how they vote and what policies are enacted since those are all based on fear.

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Are you implying that the majority of people don’t look at facts and statistics?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Do Facebook facts count?

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Do you have any evidence or data to support this conclusion, or are you participating in the behavior?

[–] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago

Plenty, take a look at anyone that votes for tRump.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Do you seriously need evidence that most people don't research what they hear on the news?

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes. Because not everything that appears intuitive, is fact. This is how disinformation is spread. It is a vulnerability in the human psychology.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you were right and people researched things they heard on the news, disinformation wouldn't spread. And Biden wouldn't have to say that violent crime is historically low.

I mean I have no idea why you think he would bother saying it if most people researched this stuff.

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps to reiterate that he’s bringing value to the US for the upcoming election?

Perhaps to cover all the bases, for those that don’t look at fact/evidence (meaning not necessarily a majority of people not looking at fact)

I mean the possibilities are endless, i feel like you’re taking a pretty narrow view to this subject

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You have not explained how disinformation spreads if people research what they hear on the news.

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That wasn’t the topic of discussion. You implied that a majority of people don’t research their views without anything other than anecdotal evidence

You tried to pivot to this other topic, I did not follow it.

I can agree with “at least some people do not properly vet and research their views” but I cannot subscribe to “most”

Make sense?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I just looked back at our conversation. Can you please show, with context, where I implied such a thing?

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

https://infosec.pub/comment/9572046

I specifically mention this point and you make zero effort to correct or modify what you’re saying so I’m left to believe that it is at least partially aligned with what you’re saying.

Feel free to take the easy way out and argue pedantics - our conversation was pretty short so if you actually looked through the convo, I suspect you ignored this point or are purposefully playing on this point to push yourself out of the waters a la pedantic argument.

Think this conversation is spent now. Thanks.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

So the answer is no, I never implied such a thing. I did, however, suggest that people do not look at crime statistics.

And that is a fact.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/people-think-crime-rate-up-actually-down-rcna129585

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

But it does matter. It matters very much that they're voting and behaving based on things that are not actually real. It matters that Biden's telling the truth, and evidence supports him. Does it mean his message is going to resonate with voters? Probably not. But it goes to the heart of our current predicament to observe that the world that exists in people's heads doesn't resemble the one they actually live in. We are in a self-fulfilling doom loop.

If we grant that crime is down but that Biden should act like it isn't down because people think it's up, then we're venturing off into a very dark wilderness where nothing is true and facts no longer matter. That's a world where people like Trump thrive.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago

Are the accounting for police crime in these stats? I'd be interested to see if police violence has increased in the US.

[–] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But immigrants... So you're clearly wrong. You have to be! Immigrants!!!!!

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

A right winger I know looked at the stats from the FBI, and his only takeaway was "Yeah, but crime is up since 2014. Media just making a fake narrative that only works on leftists."

Coworkers are fun.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

Violence is the US primary export