For 1.5 years since I critiqued the non-rigorous "mainstream empirical evidence" that "police presence reduces crime," not one of the pro-police criminologists has responded to any of my arguments. It's stunning lack of intellectual curiosity and accountability.
https://twitter.com/GarettJones/status/1484588643142483969
Instead, this fancy group of people who missed basic features of good experimental design continue to talk about their work in irresponsible pro-police ways. Many of them are really nice people--it's just a feature of this subcorner of criminology to avoid rigorous critique.
One of the reasons for this is that many of them understand that their funding and career networks subtly depend on findings that support the massive, profitable punishment bureaucracy. It's a systemic flaw, not usually individual moral failings.
In case you don't go in comments of tweet, here is article where I set forth the critiques. It was a good faith attempt that I shared widely in their networks. It's fascinating how little they have to say about it, other than "hadn't thought about that." currentaffairs.org/2020/08/why-cr…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
