Statistics from the police is the least accurate way to measure minor crimes, those stats mostly tracks how active the police is and not how much crime there is.
Or do you believe that Denmark and Sweden has the most cases of thefts in the world? These stats has nothing to do with how much theft is actually happening.
Are there better numbers? It seems like these track existing conventional wisdom about the recent crime burst, no? You're just trying to throw out the last 2 years showing a decline? Is that really a reasonable argument?
Obviously yes, there's an apples/oranges problem with comparing data sets collected in different countries under different law enforcement regimes, etc...
But between e.g. 2022 and 2017 in San Francisco specifically? I don't see the argument.
(Also important to note that while "Larceny" might be plausibly related to police ignoring crime, other things like "Murder" are very much not if you aren't accusing the police of hiding bodies. And violent crime shows the same trend.)
It is much more likely that the police changed a bit on how they report things than that the population at large changed. The real changes gets lost in the noise of police reporting changes. Police reporting changes not just via bureaucratic decisions but also the feelings of the police force in general because it is the people at the bottom that decides what to report, which is very fickle and can change quickly with reasons like "we catch thieves but they just get released, so we stopped caring".
Covid likely changed crime rates, yes, but it likely changed police reporting rates much more. That goes for all kinds of events. Saying crime is down since police reporting is down is like saying that kids learn more today since they get better grades today than 10 years ago.
Edit: You get much better numbers by asking people if they have been robbed lately, or asking stores how much gets stolen.
"Are there better numbers?" is not a question that justifies trusting bad numbers. If the best numbers you have are known to be unreliable, using them just because you don't have better ones is not justified.
Let's say the real amount per year for the last 10 years is [100, 110, 120, 130, 140], and you have numbers that show [90, 89, 88, 87, 86]. Those numbers are much better than [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. It would still be absolutely wrong to use them to figure out the trend.
If you know your source of data is bad, you must throw it out, even if it's the best one you have. If our data is bad, we just don't know.
We should be careful about the "it's the best we got" phase of the argument. It usually doesn't add information, but pushes the convo as though it does. Presenting numbers is additive, questioning those numbers relevancy can be additive. Of course the "best we got" might not be good enough to make a call.
In this argument, the sides are something like crime is down, crime is up, and don't have enough info. Roughly speaking, you're arguing for the first over the second whereas the responder is arguing for not enough info.
Even in situations where maybe you have to make a decision and don't have great data, if you don't feel great about the best info you have, then it might be better to use something else like the wisdom or gut instinct of the team or what's cheapest or what you're most able to walk back later. Data tends to make us lazy about digging deeper, it's okay when the data is good, but worse no data when it's not so relevant.
There are probably better numbers somewhere. Likely several sets worth. One of the things that makes SF's numbers especially thorny is that SFPD engages in a daily campaign to deter reporting crime.
This makes the official numbers known unreliable, but also means there's lots of room to debate how much more reliable any alternative set of numbers might be.
> Statistics from the police is the least accurate way to measure minor crimes, those stats mostly tracks how active the police is and not how much crime there is.
Bullshit. You're applying census logic to crime statistics to sow FUD. The census doesn't count people who hide from the government. That does not mean we cannot trust census data, just that it isn't flawless.
It's a count of crimes reported by citizens. You can drill down further to see which ones stuck through to arrests and convictions. This is the closest to actual data we're ever going to come in measuring a concept like "crime."
The problem is that the stats tell a wildly different story than what progressives want to hear, so they move to discredit the police and their data with academic vagaries like "overpolicing." Let's examine that.
Police supposedly overpatrol black communities. Besides Wayne Williams and the DC snipers, can you name any black serial killers?
Something like 35% of all serial killings in America are committed by black males (4-5 victims each, and this does not include gang shootings!). The implication is that if police "overpoliced" white areas in the same way, there would be a similar rise in body count from white perpetrators. White communities should be knee-deep in their dead by this logic, yet I don't see anybody complaining about all the corpses in the streets. The act of policing does not "generate" murder victims. Black men just kill a lot of people and it's an uncomfortable truth.
Domestic violence is the other big lie we swallow. Men stopped beating their wives, so women invented new reasons to claim victimhood. Now just yelling at them is reframed as assault in the social sphere, and we're presented no end of excuses for why "rape" can't be reported to the police. It's not spousal rape anymore, it's more-vague "consent violation." Adhering to agreements that are subject to arbitrary change is impossible and unenforceable, but if you run afoul of it, they run to social media telling "their" truth (which is notably distinct from "the" truth). Nobody asks your side or gives you a fair hearing. They immediately isolate you from friends and family and sever your means of financial support. This is literally vigilante domestic violence against men, committed by the "victims," in plain sight, with public support. Believing women (or anybody else) without evidence is the flag of a fool. Police report or it didn't happen.
Here's the truth: the argument of overpolicing was applicable only to property crime, but through sophistry the left reframes it to look like it applies to all crime, the stats are faulty and all cops are bastards. Every bit of this is exaggeration for political effect.
It would not surprise me in the least if Denmark or Sweden did in fact have the highest rates of property theft. You have pickpockets, high density, and are welcoming of refugees and gypsies. I trust the stats. I don't trust you.
> It would not surprise me in the least if Denmark or Sweden did in fact have the highest rates of property theft. You have pickpockets, high density, and are welcoming of refugees and gypsies. I trust the stats. I don't trust you.
You really think they have 5 times more theft than Poland or 15 times more than Mexico? The total numbers doesn't make sense, countries are all over the place regardless of their situation or stability.
Also that data is from 2003, it is before Sweden had taken in a significant amount of new immigrants. There were no security anywhere because it wasn't needed, and shops didn't close due to excessive theft. How can that be worse than a country where stores has to put products behind bars and put security guards to protect themselves, and still sometimes have to close due to the issues?
Or do you believe that Denmark and Sweden has the most cases of thefts in the world? These stats has nothing to do with how much theft is actually happening.
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/theft/