We need cops to walk beats. Not just drive or park in a spot. People don't talk to cops unless they trust cops, and they won't trust cops unless they get to interact with cops in...
We need cops to walk beats. Not just drive or park in a spot. People don't talk to cops unless they trust cops, and they won't trust cops unless they get to interact with cops in non-law-enforcement activities.
Maybe one option would be to try and shift the public view from cops being the ones to ruin the 'fun' towards being your friendly neighborhood cop who helps those who need it. At home when I was...
Maybe one option would be to try and shift the public view from cops being the ones to ruin the 'fun' towards being your friendly neighborhood cop who helps those who need it. At home when I was out late and saw cops I always knew that if it came to it they would, without a question make sure that I would be safe and get home safe. If more people made that experience, maybe more people would be willing to talk.
Did they work with any PhDs in stats (or adjacent) on this? It's an impressive data collection effort, but the visualizations are kind of confusing and their clustering of points often doesn't...
Did they work with any PhDs in stats (or adjacent) on this? It's an impressive data collection effort, but the visualizations are kind of confusing and their clustering of points often doesn't match up with the story line. It seems way too granular in areas that didn't have that many homicides, so you get this impression of a patchwork that doesn't really exist. Many nearby areas with identical demographics get placed in opposite buckets. See, for instance, the "east of the river" area on the Washington, DC map. It's not really a different community from one block to the next.
What distinguishes a high-arrest, high-homicide area from a low-arrest, high homicide area? I mean, in general, areas with high homicide rates are often demographically similar within a city. In my mind, the logical comparison would be to arrest rates in low-homicide areas of the city.
This was an interestingly-made article with integrated infographics, although I’ve only seen it on mobile. But content-wise, the main advantage it seems to have is: I think I went in with high...
This was an interestingly-made article with integrated infographics, although I’ve only seen it on mobile. But content-wise, the main advantage it seems to have is:
The data... is more precise than the national homicide data published annually by the FBI. The federal data fails to distinguish whether a case was closed due to an arrest or other circumstances, such as the death of the suspect, and does not have enough detail to allow for the mapping of unsolved homicides.
That is an incredibly interesting read. It really shows the opportunities we have with 'big data' and the difference that a well kept database can make. As the data that the Washington Post...
That is an incredibly interesting read. It really shows the opportunities we have with 'big data' and the difference that a well kept database can make. As the data that the Washington Post collected is openly available as well, maybe theres the opportunity to combine the two.
This is what I found really interesting: "In 1965, a killing led to an arrest more than ninety-two per cent of the time. In 2016, the number was slightly less than sixty per cent, which was the lowest rate since records started being kept."
I would have thought that with modern technology, more cameras, more location data available it would be easier than ever to find out who killed someone.
That's what I was hoping too. I'm glad they went through the effort, but I hope someone actually does something with it. It's interesting you mention this. I'm reading "Mindhunter" by John Douglas...
As the data that the Washington Post collected is openly available as well, maybe theres the opportunity to combine the two.
That's what I was hoping too. I'm glad they went through the effort, but I hope someone actually does something with it.
I would have thought that with modern technology, more cameras, more location data available it would be easier than ever to find out who killed someone.
It's interesting you mention this. I'm reading "Mindhunter" by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker (an eponymous Netflix series was based off of it recently), and Douglas touches upon this topic. The main point he brings up is that the level of sophistication involved in these crimes has steadily gone up, not only in terms of the methods and tools used to commit them, but also in terms of the mindsets of the killers. He illustrates this by pointing out how the nature of murder has changed over time.
It used to be that the vast majority of murders were acts of passion between people who knew each other. But over time that progressed to murders committed between strangers, and even the nature of murder itself changed. Whereas before it was common to be one-and-done, violent criminals in today's day and age have progressed to serial killing, mass killing, etc. So while our tools for forensic investigation have definitely progressed a lot, that doesn't mean the opposing side has remained stagnant in the face of technological change.
The Washington Post collected detailed data about more than 52,000 homicides in the US. At the moment there is a Q&A going on here: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/8p2cd9/oc_the_washington_post_has_compiled_a_decade_of/ .
What should be done to improve relations between residence and their police officers? What is your personal experience?
We need cops to walk beats. Not just drive or park in a spot. People don't talk to cops unless they trust cops, and they won't trust cops unless they get to interact with cops in non-law-enforcement activities.
Maybe one option would be to try and shift the public view from cops being the ones to ruin the 'fun' towards being your friendly neighborhood cop who helps those who need it. At home when I was out late and saw cops I always knew that if it came to it they would, without a question make sure that I would be safe and get home safe. If more people made that experience, maybe more people would be willing to talk.
Did they work with any PhDs in stats (or adjacent) on this? It's an impressive data collection effort, but the visualizations are kind of confusing and their clustering of points often doesn't match up with the story line. It seems way too granular in areas that didn't have that many homicides, so you get this impression of a patchwork that doesn't really exist. Many nearby areas with identical demographics get placed in opposite buckets. See, for instance, the "east of the river" area on the Washington, DC map. It's not really a different community from one block to the next.
What distinguishes a high-arrest, high-homicide area from a low-arrest, high homicide area? I mean, in general, areas with high homicide rates are often demographically similar within a city. In my mind, the logical comparison would be to arrest rates in low-homicide areas of the city.
This was an interestingly-made article with integrated infographics, although I’ve only seen it on mobile. But content-wise, the main advantage it seems to have is:
I think I went in with high expectations because of the case of Thomas Hargrove, the man who essentially wrote a serial-killer detecting algorithm and unleashed it upon his meticulously-kept murder database/archive. Compared to Hargrove’s success with analyzing the trove of information he amassed, I’m underwhelmed by the initial insights the WaPo team got, but I’m not sure if it’s because I misinterpreted what they uncovered.
That is an incredibly interesting read. It really shows the opportunities we have with 'big data' and the difference that a well kept database can make. As the data that the Washington Post collected is openly available as well, maybe theres the opportunity to combine the two.
This is what I found really interesting: "In 1965, a killing led to an arrest more than ninety-two per cent of the time. In 2016, the number was slightly less than sixty per cent, which was the lowest rate since records started being kept."
I would have thought that with modern technology, more cameras, more location data available it would be easier than ever to find out who killed someone.
That's what I was hoping too. I'm glad they went through the effort, but I hope someone actually does something with it.
It's interesting you mention this. I'm reading "Mindhunter" by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker (an eponymous Netflix series was based off of it recently), and Douglas touches upon this topic. The main point he brings up is that the level of sophistication involved in these crimes has steadily gone up, not only in terms of the methods and tools used to commit them, but also in terms of the mindsets of the killers. He illustrates this by pointing out how the nature of murder has changed over time.
It used to be that the vast majority of murders were acts of passion between people who knew each other. But over time that progressed to murders committed between strangers, and even the nature of murder itself changed. Whereas before it was common to be one-and-done, violent criminals in today's day and age have progressed to serial killing, mass killing, etc. So while our tools for forensic investigation have definitely progressed a lot, that doesn't mean the opposing side has remained stagnant in the face of technological change.