21–30 of 586 posts
Does that mean we can stop keeping mouth wash and deodorant behind lock and key on store shelves and resume locking up the criminals making messes of our cities?
This turned out to not actually be a thing: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/business/organized-shopli...
this is great news. but... i fear the new avenues of business sought by companies that operate for-profit prisons - i don't expect they'll just eat the losses of declining populations in their main moneymakers, and we're already starting to see them work on detention facilities for DHS etc.
this is great news. but... i fear the new avenues of business sought by companies that operate for-profit prisons - i don't expect they'll just eat the losses of declining populations in their main moneymakers, and we're already starting to see them work on detention facilities for DHS etc.
Most of them (probably all) have contracts that stipulate they get paid per bed they provide, whether or not it's occupied.
From the end of World War II until the mid-1970s, the proportion of Americans in prison each year never exceeded 120 per 100,000 That's a funny way of saying 0.12%. Is there a reason for this? It sure doesn't make it easy to compare the numbers they're giving with other numbers given as percentages. I guess if you're considering a sufficiently small population you could go from ~600,000 people in Vermont * 120/100,00…
Worse would be 1,000 per 100,000, which is 1% but there's no way to tell that it's not rounded or truncated.
If it is not, crime rates are up, and by a lot.
If it is, crime rates are down.
When you flip from one to the other, takes about 15/20 years for the effect to show up.
Rationale is that forcing parents to have their kids when they're not ready for them significantly increases delinquency in young adults.
This is apparently the only possible theory at the moment. It's not proven, of course, but the other theories which were given have been found lacking. This is the only theory which has some evidence, and hasn't been found to be wrong.
From the end of World War II until the mid-1970s, the proportion of Americans in prison each year never exceeded 120 per 100,000 That's a funny way of saying 0.12%. Is there a reason for this? It sure doesn't make it easy to compare the numbers they're giving with other numbers given as percentages. I guess if you're considering a sufficiently small population you could go from ~600,000 people in Vermont * 120/100,00…
> 120 per 100,000 ... Is there a reason for this? Crime statistics (e.g. homicides) are often quoted as 'n per 100,000 population'. It's probably also easier for mental math, e.g. here's a city with 1 million population, that's 10 100Ks, so 1200 people in prison.
> Rapidly declining numbers of youth are committing crimes, getting arrested, and being incarcerated. This matters because young offenders are the raw material that feeds the prison system: As one generation ages out, another takes its place on the same horrid journey. Another factor which will soon impact this, if it isn't already, is the rapidly changing nature of youth. Fertility rates have been dropping since 200…
From the end of World War II until the mid-1970s, the proportion of Americans in prison each year never exceeded 120 per 100,000 That's a funny way of saying 0.12%. Is there a reason for this? It sure doesn't make it easy to compare the numbers they're giving with other numbers given as percentages. I guess if you're considering a sufficiently small population you could go from ~600,000 people in Vermont * 120/100,00…
120 per 100,000 includes significant digits. 0.12% could be anywhere from 120-124 per 100,000. You'd really want 0.120%, but that's confusing for different reasons. Worse would be 1,000 per 100,000, which is 1% but there's no way to tell that it's not rounded or truncated.
Crime used to pay. Your expected return on a crime was pretty good for the risk involved. Nowadays though, because of technology, risk has increased while the returns have also decreased. Barriers to entry for crimes worth committing are now way higher. Robbing a gas station decades ago could yield a nice chunk of cash that could probably pay bills for a month. But now with less people using cash and cost of living increasing, there’s no point. Most registers have pitiful amount of cash. And mugging strangers on the street is likely even worse. No one carries wads of cash anymore.
The hot industry to be in is ransomware. The sums are vast and the risk is low if you do it right. But it’s very white collar, it requires skills that your typical low level criminal won’t have.
Overall, it means there’s a lot of crimes that are done not for any financial reason, just for personal satisfaction.
2014 seemed like the big year where smartphone ubiquity changed US teen culture. Less boredom, dumb adventure, drinking, etc. (For better or worse but in this case better.)