As noted here many, many times, progressives often have a wildly inaccurate conception of the criminal demographic and of the psychology and motives in play, as expressed by the criminals themselves. A conception so inaccurate, one might call it perverse.
On the subject of prison and its occupants, Inquisitive Bird shares some corrective statistics while poking at one or two common myths:
Prisoners have not only typically committed
serious offences, they have also typically committed
many offences. The figure below shows the number of prior arrests for people admitted to state prison (including the arrest that led to the prison sentence)…
The median number of prior arrests was nine. More than three quarters have at least 5 prior arrests. Having 30+ prior arrests was more common than having no arrest other than the arrest that led to the prison sentence (i.e., 1 prior arrest)…
As striking as these figures are, they still understate prisoners’ criminal histories. This is because of the dark figure of crime—the amount of unreported, undetected, or undiscovered crime. A highly replicated finding is that criminals self-report having committed many offences for each police contact. That is, they readily admit to having “gotten away with” many offences.
One study of 411 males found that the self-reported number of offences was over 30 times greater than convictions. For sexual offending, studies have estimated the dark figure to be anywhere from 6.5 to 20 times the official figure. In a recent study of American delinquent youths, the self-reported number of delinquent offences was 25 for every police contact.
However large the dark figure of crime exactly is, it is undoubtedly practically significant. Prisoners’ criminal histories are therefore substantially more extensive than their criminal records would suggest.
There’s much more to be had in the linked piece, along with some eyebrow-raising charts.
Unsurprisingly, a similar pattern is found here in the UK:
UK data show that 70% of custodial sentences are imposed on those with at least seven previous convictions or cautions, and 50% are imposed on those with at least 15 previous convictions or cautions.
And then there’s Sweden:
But perhaps the most illustrative study… used Swedish nationwide data of all 2.4 million individuals born in 1958–1980 and looked at the distribution of violent crime convictions… They found that
1% of people were accountable for 63% of all violent crime convictions, and 0.12% of people accounted for 20% of violent crime convictions.
Another notable fact: approximately half of violent crime convictions were committed by people who already had 3 or more violent crime convictions. In other words, if after being convicted of 3 violent crimes people were prevented from further offending, half of violent crime convictions would have been avoided.
In short, before ending up in prison, the vast majority of the perpetrators, the supposedly downtrodden and marginalised, have at least five prior arrests, with almost half having 10 or more, and one in seven, 20 or more:
Indeed, having 30 or more prior arrests when admitted to state prison was more common than having no arrest other than the arrest that led to the prison sentence.
At which point, the phrase that comes to mind is the nature of the beast. Conceivably, other phrases may occur to readers.
Those with a taste for grim humour are steered towards this rather vivid indication of how a crime rate can improve when just three burglars – with over 200 convictions between them – flee the police in a stolen car before colliding with something solid and ceasing to be.
An illustration, one of many, of how a very large fraction of crime could be prevented by dealing decisively with a surprisingly small number of persistent offenders.
And as commenter Geoff quipped, following this:
I don’t think people understand it takes a lot of work to end up in prison.
Well, indeed.
For those of you with X accounts, Inquisitive Bird can be followed here.
Update, via the comments:
MarkL quotes this,
progressives often have a wildly inaccurate conception of the criminal demographic and of the psychology and motives in play, as expressed by the criminals themselves.
And adds,
Don’t know whether to be depressed or burst out laughing. They just don’t have a clue.
The mismatch of progressive assumptions with the perpetrators’ own stated motives, the way their minds work, is quite something. The idea that carjacking, for instance, is done for reasons of survival, to meet basic needs, and only done in desperation or under duress, because of some supposedly oppressive and racist social system, is darkly funny. Perverse to the point of absurdity.
As illustrated, vividly, in the study linked above – say, by the female carjacker named PoPo, who terrorised a random woman, stole her car, her purse and her wedding ring, then “bought some drink and… weed and… got my hair did.” Because, you know, hair.
Or her fellow carjacker, Little Ty, who, contrary to progressive assumptions, had no need of money – “We don’t need money, we have money” – via means one might guess at – but who simply finds pleasure in violating others. Or the ferals named Loco and Corleone, who boasted that financial security wouldn’t stop them from indulging in carjacking because they just like doing it. Because it’s exciting.
Pretty much by default, the mental process – such as it is – is see it, want it, take it. The fear and degradation of the victim is just icing on the cake. A point expanded on by a carjacker named Tall: “It’s a rush thing… when you’re pulling someone out the car… Just a rush come over me… I mean, I feel good.” And likewise, Big Mix, who found his victims’ terror a “kick,” and indeed “hilarious.” And the aforementioned PoPo, who boasted, “It’s funny just to see them shaking and pissing all over theyself.”
And yet progressives will conjure elaborate explanations, outright fantasies, that bear no relation at all to the motives stated by the criminals themselves. The reality of their nature.
It must be that progressive empathy we hear so much about.
Recent Comments