While headlines tend to focus on falling clearance rates in large liberal cities, the decline occurred nationwide in both red and blue cities, counties and states. The violent crime clearance rate, for example, fell considerably between 2019 to 2022 in big cities, which tend to be led by Democrats, as well as in small cities and suburban and rural counties, which tend to be led by Republicans.

  • Rottcodd@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s not necessarily the case though that fewer crimes are being actually “solved,” in the most precise sense of the term.

    It could be that the current heightened interest in police oversight and focus on investigation of (and huge lawsuit payouts as a consequence of) wrongdoing by the police has made it less likely that people will be railroaded/framed for crimes they didn’t actually commit, so the rate at which crimes are marked as solved has declined, even as the rate at which they actually are solved hasn’t.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      While this certainly sounds plausible, even rational and perfectly logical, it’s also the exact sort of argument that could easily be spurious. Now, i’m not making that accusation (nor do mean to imply it), but do you happen to have any data backing up this assertion?

      • Rottcodd@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Eh?

        I said that it’s “not necessarily the case that” one thing and “it could be that” something else.

        Logic and plausibilty are all that’s necessary.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          when asking for evidence, i didn’t expect equivocation and, “it’s just a guess, bro,” hand-waving in response-- see, this is why i was skeptical and asked.

          Logic and plausibilty [sic] are all that’s necessary.

          no. evidence is necessary. otherwise, it’s just speculation, and that’s just not good enough.

          • Rottcodd@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            What the fuck are you on about?

            It’s not necessarily the case though that fewer crimes are being actually “solved,” in the most precise sense of the term.

            It could be that the current heightened interest in police oversight and focus on investigation of (and huge lawsuit payouts as a consequence of) wrongdoing by the police has made it less likely that people will be railroaded/framed for crimes they didn’t actually commit, so the rate at which crimes are marked as solved has declined, even as the rate at which they actually are solved hasn’t.

            That’s everything I said, right there. What part of it are you not understanding?

            evidence is necessary. otherwise, it’s just speculation

            Of course it’s fucking speculation! What the fuck else did you think it was?!

            i didn’t expect equivocation

            It would be equivocation if there was a disjunct between the intended meaning of what I said at one point and the intended meaning of the same thing at some other point.

            But I’ve been entirely consistent in what I’ve said. The disjunct is between what YOU thought I meant and what I actually said, and that’s your fucking problem - not mine.

            • gregorum@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah, I’m not reading that hissy fit. When you make assertions, back it up with evidence. If it’s just a guess, say so.