Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics

casetext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics

#21

Post by adventured »

wheaties wrote: post #8

I think this article conveys a real theme when it comes to using, misusing or listening to someone else totally making sh#t up that only serves their purpose data. Here are hard decisions based on dubious data with real implications to people's lives. I just don't see how this connects to HN, tech or start-ups.

HN isn't limited to either tech or start-ups.

"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

If this article had been about a typical crime, in a typical city, with little else of interest, then perhaps it would be overwhelmingly unsuitable for HN.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the article gratifies my intellectual curiosity. It's fascinating to find out about such an important abuse of information, spanning decades, at the highest levels of the judicial system.

Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics

#22

Post by cperciva »

patzerhacker wrote: post #2

Better be careful posting this. You don't want to be labeled by Matthew Garrett as a rape apologist[0]. [0] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/18505.html?thread=693321

It makes me sad that people hesitate to discuss verifiable facts for fear that small-minded people might call them nasty names.

Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics

#23

Post by protomyth »

cperciva wrote: post #22
patzerhacker wrote: post #2

Better be careful posting this. You don't want to be labeled by Matthew Garrett as a rape apologist[0]. [0] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/18505.html?thread=693321

It makes me sad that people hesitate to discuss verifiable facts for fear that small-minded people might call them nasty names.

I don't think its the fear of getting called nasty names, its the fear of people calling your boss, spouse, etc. and bringing down the modern, low-energy, high-damage version of a mob. When it only take a couple of minutes a day to ruin someone's career or life, the risk is a bit high.

Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics

#24

Post by bmelton »

mfoy_ wrote: post #19
bmelton wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same thought as you, having also skimmed the articles. Having now read them more fully, it seems that patzerhacker's (admittedly, somewhat kneejerk) reaction draws closer parallels than I initially thought. The approximation is here: http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/ted_mail/0037.html In that email, Ted Ts'o disputes the common knowledge that 1 in 4 women are raped. It does not , in my opinion, rise to the le…

I would half-disagree. There are some high level parallels like you mentioned, but the Ted mail is attacking the statistic by it's definitions, whereas this article attacks the statistic directly because it has no basis in reality and simply persists due to the nature of politics. (Publicly trying to correct this misconception would make a judge/lawyer/politician look like a rape apologist, or weak on crime, or sexua…

By my reading of this article, it is also attacking the statistic by its definition.

The implied definition is that recidivism means "repeated the crime for which they were convicted" or "relapsed into criminal behavior". When it clarifies that the highest rate of recidivism is related to merely parole violations, like going to a bar, or visiting a friend who is also an ex-con, it is attempting to clarify the definition of recidivism, or at least our perception of it.

Side note: On this matter, I'm actually somewhat torn. I think that parole can be onerous and unjust, and some parole officers can tenaciously seek out any and all infractions, while on the other hand, parole is the alternative to a longer prison term, and the parolee has agreed to abide by those extra-stringent rules in exchange for an earlier, supervised release.

Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics

#25

Post by overpaidgoogler »

dataker wrote: post #4

I hope this link doesn't get flagged. In HN, I've been seeing a lot of links with useful information be unnecessarily flagged by ideologists.

I don't closely follow which articles are flagged, but I think that articles with a tech angle or some novel statistical or scientific analysis are favored over general politics. The reason I flag general political articles (eg articles about race or gender issues without any of the above) is that I don't find the discussions interesting, and I think that the posters are coming from a viewpoint of "this stuff is important so it should be discussed everywhere, whether people want to or not"

Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics

#26

Post by lifeisstillgood »

fweespeech wrote: post #13
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #10

Unless I am missing some hidden biases this seems an interesting discussion with some worthwhile thinking material. It does not seem like a "rape apologist", whatever that is. For me the main argument is a big one:: When the California Corrections Department recently examined cases of sex offender registrants returned to prison for a new offense, they found that in 88% of the cases, the new offense was a parole viola…

Eh, I'd say the bigger bit is compared to all ex-felons: > About 3% of felons with no known history of sex offenses commit one within 4.5 years of their release. Its pretty clear: To justify having a subset of ex-felons [sex offenders] on the list, all ex-felons have to be on the list. Otherwise, the justification [they are sex offenders] falls flat when other types of ex-felons commit sex offenses more frequently. H…

Ok I get your point, and you seem to be arguing the same as the article - the value of a register of sex offenders is not as great as it might seem.

it depends I suppose on whether the register has much of an effect. I mean if you reoffend even after going to jail, having your name on a list seems unlikely to help.

Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics

#27

Post by mucker »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #10

Unless I am missing some hidden biases this seems an interesting discussion with some worthwhile thinking material. It does not seem like a "rape apologist", whatever that is. For me the main argument is a big one:: When the California Corrections Department recently examined cases of sex offender registrants returned to prison for a new offense, they found that in 88% of the cases, the new offense was a parole viola…

I found this quote in particular to be troubling for the _opposite_ reason. That is, in the case of a sex offender who is a pederast, hanging out with a child can be (and for good reason) a parole offense. The author buries this in his argument in order to hide the information from the audience.

Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics

#28

Post by lifeisstillgood »

mucker wrote: post #27
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #10

Unless I am missing some hidden biases this seems an interesting discussion with some worthwhile thinking material. It does not seem like a "rape apologist", whatever that is. For me the main argument is a big one:: When the California Corrections Department recently examined cases of sex offender registrants returned to prison for a new offense, they found that in 88% of the cases, the new offense was a parole viola…

I found this quote in particular to be troubling for the _opposite_ reason. That is, in the case of a sex offender who is a pederast, hanging out with a child can be (and for good reason) a parole offense. The author buries this in his argument in order to hide the information from the audience.

I had not actually considered that. I would then look at reforms of the parole system. In the same way there is murder and manslaughter, there is hanging round school gates and drinking in a bar with other felons.

But yes, good point. Inwonder how the parole violations are recorded?

Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics

#29

Post by Nimi »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #12
afarrell wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because nobody will suspect you of having both the intention and power to carry out genocide.

So because it's more impersonal, then.

Consider another explanation: If you use the term "rape culture", you essentially claim that in today's society, oftentimes rape will be accepted (FWIW, I agree with this statement). However, there appears to be a consensus in today's society that genocide is always a bad thing; generally that opinion is expressed without any qualifiers (as opposed to qualifiers like "legitimate rape" etc.)

Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics

#30

Post by fweespeech »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #26
fweespeech wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I'd say the bigger bit is compared to all ex-felons: > About 3% of felons with no known history of sex offenses commit one within 4.5 years of their release. Its pretty clear: To justify having a subset of ex-felons [sex offenders] on the list, all ex-felons have to be on the list. Otherwise, the justification [they are sex offenders] falls flat when other types of ex-felons commit sex offenses more frequently. H…

Ok I get your point, and you seem to be arguing the same as the article - the value of a register of sex offenders is not as great as it might seem. it depends I suppose on whether the register has much of an effect. I mean if you reoffend even after going to jail, having your name on a list seems unlikely to help.

It isn't identical to the article.

I think there needs to be a list of convicted felons somewhere that is widely accessible with their addresses so people are aware they are in the neighborhood. However, I don't think it should list them as "sex offenders" or the like. There is an unearned stigma in many of the cases. [e.g. urinating in public gets you on THE LIST]

Post reply on HN