One part of the 2020 NCVS that deserves attention--and tracks previous years--is to note that (non-lethal) violent victimization rates among whites and Blacks are roughly the same.
Which contradicts the conventional "Black and Black Crime!" type narratives.
It is, of course, inarguably true Blacks are the victims of a grossly disproportionate share of homicides-- abt 50% of the victims per year.
But another good reminder that we should be wary of extrapolating narratives of murder to narratives abt victimization in general.
And for those in the statistical weeds, the BJS--unlike the FBI!--gives us standard errors. Here they are for 2020 for the racial victimization table.
This is a fair caveat to keep in mind: NCVS victimization appears well below what hospital data suggests, in ways that suggest the missing cases are not random. But also worth noting other groups have surprising gaps here too.
More than anything else, it’s a great reminder that we need to study crime and victimization across a wide range of datasets. That needs to be the norm, not something done in solely in academic books.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The other issue, always left unaddressed because it is hard to measure and I don’t even know how it turns out, is if advocates had adopted a more mainstream slogan, would we even be talking police funding at all?
Like, had it been called “Redirect Funding to Public Health,” would everyone nodded sagely, said “great idea!” and then done nothing?
We actually have that program/slogan: the Justice Reinvestment Initiative. And it’s done good stuff, but … hasn’t changed the debate, at all.
I’m genuinely, deeply unsure abt the slogan. In an era where we nationalize local races, Lamb and Spannenberger aren’t wrong that a bad local slogan has national implications, and long-run GOP control of Congress will hurt those invoking “defund.”
I know I should just let this go, but sometimes things #onhere get under your skin in a way you need to reply to.
Someone today, who should know better, accused me of unethically being in the “violence denying” camp.
It’s a tedious point, but just need to rebuke it here.
Here I am arguing that it’s hard to compare 2020 to 2019—in OPPOSITION to those who would downplay violence—because the at-risk denominators are different in 2020:
So I deleted my earlier tweet abt shootings being down in the NCVS. I misread the chart, which was about ANY gun use (including displaying it), not just shooting.
Those are, obviously, two different things, and addressing it downthread seemed insufficient.
Still, some thoughts:
That gun-involved violence falls in the NCVS is still somewhat surprising, since total gun purchases appear to be way up.
Could reflect something about the NCVS, but it could also tell us something about how those guns were being used that was otherwise not immediately obvious.
There's still some intriguing back of the envelope math:
UCR says ~40% of robberies involve a gun.
NCVS20 has a ~97K drop in robberies.
If 40% holds, that's ~40K fewer armed robberies.
Total gun drop for NCVS20 is 132K.
In fact, 2020 (reported) victimization levels were lower across all categories than almost any time in the last five years.
This seems to reinforce the claim that what rose in 2020 really was distinctly homicide.
Now, it is essential to note that 2020 was a strange year for conducting an in-person survey, and the BJS and Census had to adapt. So betting some comparative caution needed, but don’t overstate that either.
This is an important addition to this article. It’s essential to note that the management collapse at Rikers breeds violence, but an article that ONLY discusses violence reinforces (likely unintentionally) a narrative that ultimately supports imprisonment.
I think berating every article on the criminal legal system as “copaganda” will ultimately harm reform efforts—I’m sympathetic to the point, but even I’m getting turned off by the vitriol—but it is also important to note how the powerful but subtle impact of framing.
Here, noting the violence is critical. But by mentioning more of the mutual aid taking place (it’s noted only once, I think, when it talks abt the ppl detained escorting civilian workers—a frame that still centers violence), it would frame the violence as more situational.
If you’re going to disagree with me, at least disagree with the argument I’m actually making, not some bizarro-world version of it that is the opposite of what I’ve said.
This isn’t the first time he’s done this. In The Atlantic, he used a quote of mine about how reformers should NOT underplay the homicide spike to say I said they should: