The 1% of the population accountable for 63 % of all violent crime convictions (2013)

[anonymouskimmer]

Most important thing: This was a study of the Swedish population!

For the US population:

Convictions include innocent people who follow advice to plea guilty [1], or who are wrongfully convicted [2], and don't include guilty people who got off, or who were never found [3].

[1] - https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim...

[2] - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/7/14834454/ex...

> “African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated,” the researchers write. “They constitute 47% of the 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in ‘group exonerations.’”

[3] - https://www.insider.com/police-dont-solve-most-violent-prope...

> Federal government data from 2018 show that just 46% of all violent crimes reported to police were "cleared" with an arrest, and 18% of property crimes were cleared. Beyond that, only an estimated 43% of people who were the victims of violent crimes reported the incidents to police.

I expect this article to get flagged pretty soon.

[krysp]

Why would it be flagged? Sweden is a prominent European country, equally valid an example as the USA for such a study.

[kasperni]

> Most important thing: This was a study of the Swedish population!

In 95 % of cases where something like this is posted on HN, it is based on the US population. And no one bats an eye.

[raxxorraxor]

Seems like you were correct. Article is flagged. I believe it shouldn't be flagged, it should be ignored by those not interested in it.

The study itself probably proposes some interesting observations, although...

> These findings support the provision of far-reaching intervention

...doesn't sound too convincing without context and specifics.

[selcuka]

I am not a statistician, but I don't know if this figure is very interesting. The article says that "3.9% had at least one violent conviction", so it is kind of expected that 1% (i.e. 25.6% of that 3.9%) to have multiple convictions. Yeah, it's a bit skewed (63%) but still doesn't sound totally unexpected to me.

The Odds Ratio of 2.5 for male offenders is actually more interesting.

[rayiner]

This is quite apparent if you have experience with the criminal justice system. When there is a conviction in federal court, the Bureau of Prisons creates a pre-sentence report (PSR) listing the convictions, arrests, etc. These are incredible to read. Not only are there usually prior convictions. But in many cases, there are outstanding arrest warrants for crimes other jurisdictions won’t even bother prosecuting as a result of the conviction.

[seanmcdirmid]

In seattle, people are released with outstanding arrests warrants that the police clearly know about. It’s like, ya, we know this guy already has 3 outstanding warrants for car theft (usually just jumping non-bail), they get caught stealing a car again and are simply released with no or some small bond that is paid by a non-profit.

[zoklet-enjoyer]

Most people aren't violent. Or not to the point that they can't control it. The ones who can't control it though, they punch above their weight.

[1270018080]

Summary for those who don't want to click: "The majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by a small number of persistent violent offenders, typically males, characterized by early onset of violent criminality, substance abuse, personality disorders, and nonviolent criminality."

So in theory if we purge the bottom 1% of the population every decade or so, there will be at least 63% less crime?

[theossuary]

Ah yes let's take stack ranking and apply it to society, that'll end up great

[golem14]

Doesn't the Mitchell and webb look has an episode on this? "Have you looked into what happens if you kill all the poor?"

[artificialLimbs]

I think better would be figuring out how to incentivize fathers to remain the fathers to their children, as fatherless men are drastically more prone to crime and risky behavior.

[gjsman-1000]

Well, societies used to do that. It was called the Death Penalty. Not saying it’s a good or bad thing but…

[fatneckbeard]

if they went back before 1973... you know, say, 1939... might have some different statistics about who is responsible for violence in Sweden.

[photochemsyn]

The most obvious solution to this problem is to direct prosecutors and police to focus all their efforts on violent crime prevention.

However, this avoids the problems associated with harmful nonviolent crime, such as the fraud scams targeting the elderly and other vulnerable populations that you've probably seen on your social media feeds, messaging apps, etc., let alone things like crypto coin scams and subprime loans and on and on.

Of course, eliminating all nonviolent drug abuse issues from the criminal docket and passing them on to the public health infrastructure (see Portugal) might free up resources to deal with both violent crime and property fraud.

[paulpauper]

However, this avoids the problems associated with harmful nonviolent crime, such as the fraud scams targeting the elderly and other vulnerable populations that you've probably seen on your social media feeds, messaging apps, etc., let alone things like crypto coin scams and subprime loans and on and on.

Yes, this times 2x. Too much focus on social media, like twitter, on violent crime. that is a problem, but non-violent crime, such as fraud, tends to have way more victims per perpetrator. it's not uncommon for a single fraudster, such as credit card theft, id theft, or call center theft, to have many, many victims for considerable sums of money before being caught. The collapse of FTX, for example, had thousands of claimants/victims for combined billions, all perpetrated by one guy and his handful of accomplices.

[jimbob45]

in the Swedish population 1973–2004

[beefman]

My comment when this was last posted, in 2018

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16348644

[givemeethekeys]

Some related wisdom that has been more useful for me: 5% of the people out there are assholes - the unsafe drivers, the "can I speak to the manager" customers, the sociopathic case workers ... they're all in that 5%. You're bound to run into them, and they're bound to make an attempt to spoil your day. Learn to shake your head, shrug it off and go about your day knowing that 5% of all people are assholes.

[Helithumper]

(2013)

[tomlockwood]

One of the most interesting things to me is the racists that insist that we should examine all demographic factors when trying to identify who the criminals are, but they shy away from the pure fact that violent crime is almost exclusively perpetuated by men. And yet, there are no calls from them for a restriction on male immigration.

[calderknight]

Racists shy away from the fact that men are more likely to commit murder than women? No, I assure you, roughly every racist on Earth would find any other view ridiculous. But it is very easy to find non-racists who take the equally absurd position of denying that African Americans are more likely to commit murder than White Americans

And you're wrong when you say there are no calls from racists to restrict male immigration. Of course, most racists want to restrict both male and female immigration. But one constantly sees complaints specifically about how many male immigrants are entering the USA. And I have seen it suggested (though only rarely) that immigration should be allowed for females only.

[willcipriano]

What's interesting to me is the opposite. Why aren't we screaming about the systemic oppression that must be forcing men to act violently?

[enkid]

I mean, statistically illegal immigrants in the US are less likely to commit violent crime. [0] Truthfully, that audience probably isn't too concerned with statistics.

[0]https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117

[cortesoft]

What is always tricky about any attempt to use statistical prediction on something rare like criminality is that you have two things that are both true: the vast majority of crimes are committed by men, AND the vast majority of men are not criminals.

So what do you do with this information? If a crime is committed, you can guess with some accuracy it was likely committed by a man, but you can't arrest a random man and think he is likely the criminal.

Any attempts to preemptively limit male behavior is going to affect a lot more innocent men than guilty men.

[sinoue]

If you have a criminal record your chances of a legal immigration is drastically reduced.

[bombcar]

I’ve seen that (maybe sarcastically) proposed in places - unlimited immigration of fertile women only.

Don’t put it past them.

[Vt71fcAqt7]

You seem to be makimg several claims here, some more related to what I think is your main point than others:

1. Racists insist that we should examine all demographic factors when trying to identify who the criminals are

2. They shy away from the pure fact that violent crime is almost exclusively perpetuated by men.

3. There are no calls from them for a restriction on male immigration.

4. Using "but" and "yet" between 1 and 2 and 3 shows you believe that 2 and 3 delegitimize 1.

Regarding point 1, I think you are mostly correct, although not all racists would agree. ("Not all racists!")

Regarding point 2, I think you are certainly wrong insofar as there is no lack of admission. But I think your main point is really implied from 3 which is that racists only seem to focus on racial group differences rather than sex differences for violent crimes, which has been used as one of the major "scientific" justifications for racism while ignoring that the same argumemt when applied to men vs. women would show that women are better than men. And this is certainly an interesting point as you said.

Regarding 3 itself — and not your implied argument I expanded on above — it is also not exactly correct. Most racists would find female immigrants more favorable than male immigrants.

In any case, regarding your main point, I believe mosts racists would say that males "equal out" females in some way, for example that men created medicine, or would point out that at the very least society cannot continue without men from a biological point of view or some other explaination, and these explainations are not relevant wrt race.

All this said, I think the way you made this argument with its multiple subtly different claims is part of what generated so many responses. Not that that is inherntly bad.

[lotsofpulp]

Is this true? I assume detectives always start with men as suspects in physical crimes unless the evidence indicates otherwise.

[ryan93]

I think you will find that racists will be okay with basically any immigration restriction. Its like people arguing back with anti affirmative action people that legacy admissions are unfair. Well they would happily give up a benefit they will never receive to get what they want!

[nayuki]

Immigration? I'm pretty sure there are enough problems with locally born men who are criminals. Immigration is but a drop in the bucket when it comes to problems.

[13of40]

One issue with that is that people tend to come in pairs. What good is it to the couple if the woman can immigrate but the man can't?

[KennyBlanken]

> hey shy away from the pure fact that violent crime is almost exclusively perpetuated by men

[citation required]

[oatmeal1]

Banishment needs to be brought back as a form of punishment. The 99% cannot let the 1% ruin it for everyone. We need penal colony Australia 2.0.

[HDThoreaun]

If you're going to be racist at least make it believable. You're literally going with the Django Unchained "3 dots on their skull" answer here. If you talked about black culture promoting crime a lot of people here would be much more sympathetic.

[swagmoney1606]

Hey cool so some questions for you to consider:

- Does our society have systemic biases in law enforcement and the judicial system?

- Is it really sad that we are unable to, as a society, entertain conversations about genetically modifying our own gene pool to prevent criminal offenses?

- Why are nearly half of your comments about racial politics in America? Perhaps you have a bias yourself to examine.

- Why are links to twitter considered valid sources. Common. How can you expect people to take you seriously

- Are you racist? I'm only asking because you seem racist

[caseysoftware]

You're giving a variation of Yuval Noah Harari's "useless eater" or the "useless class"

The coming technological bonanza will probably make it feasible to feed and support people even without any effort from their side. But what will keep them occupied and content? One answer might be drugs and computer games. Unnecessary people might spend increasing amounts of time within 3D virtual-reality worlds that would provide them with far more excitement and emotional engagement than the drab reality outside. Yet such a development would deal a mortal blow to the liberal belief in the sacredness of human life and of human experiences. What’s so sacred about useless bums who pass their days devouring artificial experiences?

I hope humanity - as a whole - sees value in helping and improving others vs drugging them and letting the wither to nothing.

Ref: https://ideas.ted.com/the-rise-of-the-useless-class/

[93po]

holy shit, you cannot seriously be suggesting forced sterilization

[swagmoney1606]

I disagree. We should not be sterilizing people for their crimes. People have a right to decide on the number of children they want to have.

Your proposition to select the gene pool of our society, based on one's measure treads in the waters of Eugenics.

Not all children born to criminals are a detriment to society. They make up the society you live in.

"dregs"