The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics
1–10 of 30 posts
Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics
#2Better be careful posting this. You don't want to be labeled by Matthew Garrett as a rape apologist[0].
Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics
#3Better 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 truly is astonishing sometimes just what a remarkably thought-terminating taboo the topic of rape and sexual assault is. Of course it's a gravely serious one, but I don't exaggerate when I say most people are more comfortable talking about genocide than they are about rape.
Is it because a mass atrocity is more impersonal, or is there a degree of puritanism to the whole angle?
That said, mjg59 has always been a vested partisan on these topics, so I wouldn't use him to make any broader points.
Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics
#4I 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.
Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics
#5I 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.
As opposed to those ideologists that post such links?
New account posts article on controversial political subject restricted impact on US, no prior comments, no direct link to hacking and/or start-ups or even technology. Flagged.
Simply because I don't think this is 'hackernews' and for being pre-emptively labeled an 'ideologist'.
Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics
#6Better 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
I don't think this is an appropriate parallel... apples and oranges as it were.
Admittedly, I only skimmed both articles, but this article appears to be about misinformation regarding recidivism rates affecting the judgment of legislators. The article you linked is in regards to someone being confused about what constitutes rape.
Why should OP be scared that somebody may label them as a rape apologist for linking this? For broaching the subject of what happens to people convicted of sex crimes?
Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics
#7This isn't as rare as I would like it. A few gun studies from the west coast in the 90's pulled this kind of quote without justification or attribution.
Two additional things to be aware of are conditions of the study and people pulling a statistic without the full qualification.
"This activity reduced X by 50%" is a popular one. It gets used when writing grants, but often the original study had very specific environmental conditions to go along with that reduction. Those are often ignored in the activities spread.
Quite a lot of people pull quotes from even legitimate studies, but forget to also pull the qualifiers. This happens a lot with medical studies.
There is another, but I can hardly blame people giving its an outright deception. Sometime government agencies or individuals falsify data. We all remember the whole vaccine thing and the damage it did. I can now blame folks for repeating this long after the facts are know.
A popular one I've seen on HN is people quoting AMTRAK's budget showing AMTRAK's ACELA Express is profitable. Sadly, that's only true if you use some really shady accounting[1] and completely forget capital costs. You wouldn't know that from the various articles quoting the actual budget report.
Politics sometimes trumps the doing of basic fact checking.
1) here is one of the internal critiques of even the newer accounting https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/Amtrak's%20New%2... and http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/782/517/Amtrak-Report-on-Interna...
Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics
#8I 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.
Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics
#9Better 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 truly is astonishing sometimes just what a remarkably thought-terminating taboo the topic of rape and sexual assault is. Of course it's a gravely serious one, but I don't exaggerate when I say most people are more comfortable talking about genocide than they are about rape. Is it because a mass atrocity is more impersonal, or is there a degree of puritanism to the whole angle? That said, mjg59 has always been a ve…
Because nobody will suspect you of having both the intention and power to carry out genocide.
Re: The Supreme Court's Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics
#10Unless 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 violation. Parole violations are generally acts that aren’t crimes for anyone not on parole—things like going to a bar or visiting a friend who’s also an ex-felon. Only 1.8% of those re-incarcerated had committed a new sex offense.
That's a really big mis step in defining recidivist rates - and I would think it is worth following up in all cases (not just sex offences)