Statistics, and Damn Statistics

So your car may be vandalized, broken into, or stolen.... an intruder may force their way into your home, point a gun at you, take what they wish.... you may be kidnapped, held hostage or beaten, but as long as your not killed, Jackson's a great place to live.

So what is the point of this piece? Are you saying that we don't really have a crime problem?

Why point out Kane Ditto and Chif Johnson? Is this a justification of the current crime rates?

What were the crime stats before 1995?

I hope it's not more of this "perception" of crime spin. My car has been broken into three times in the last two years. For me, perception is reality.

Maybe it's time to move before I become a statistic that matters....

  Posted by: jarisc on Apr 16, 05 | 12:56 am

And another thought on the subject...

Why are the statistics a favorite political tool of Gov. Barbour, Wilson Carrol, Frank Melton and Rick Whitlow?

Mayor Johnson touts his reduction in crime statistics every chance he gets. Are the statistics not one of the Mayor's favorite tools as well?

So far that stats show he hasn't done much on his watch in the crime arena.

Can you get put up the stats for the last twenty years? I'd love to see how the city has done over a wider time span.

  Posted by: jarisc on Apr 16, 05 | 1:03 am

jarisc, I think the point is that many Melton supporters are claiming that JPD is "fudging" crime statistics. They are spreading this very very serious rumor with absolutely no foundation. Then, they are using the M-Q rankings as "proof" that crime is not falling in the city. One of the points of this article is that the M-Q rankings are based on the same numbers that JPD uses - so maybe the Melton campaign should quit bashing the JPD statistics, since they are, in effect using them. Packaged in a different way, for sure, but the same numbers.

As for me, I think that it is important to separate out types of crime. Violent crimes, in my opinion, do in fact detract from quality of life more than non-violent. I'd far rather live in a place with a high rate of auto burglary and low rate of murder, even if it has the same MQ rating as a city with a high rate of murder and low rate of auto burglary. But, it sounds like for you, it just doesn't matter. So, maybe death penalty for auto burglars, since a crime is a crime is a crime?

As for the Kane Ditto, there's been alot of campaign rhetoric about how crime is essentially Mayor Johson's fault, and we lived in a golden age here in Jackson before he took over. It's about historical perspective. Which you seem to agree is important, judging by your questions.

and, could you go read the piece on "perception". No one is saying or has ever said that crime is "only a percpetion." No one is saying or has ever said that we don't have a crime problem. That would be a very stupid thing to say.

  Posted by: kate on Apr 16, 05 | 9:10 am

So your car may be vandalized, broken into, or stolen.... an intruder may force their way into your home, point a gun at you, take what they wish.... you may be kidnapped, held hostage or beaten, but as long as your not killed, Jackson's a great place to live.

No, Jarisc, that is simply a dumb-a** reading of this piece. Reading comprehension, Dude, reading comprehension.

Yes, the chief touts the statistics when they're good as does the mayor. They've also both discussed them when they're bad. *We* have been there for both, live and in person, and writing down everything they say, not just the quotes to use against them. Er, that's called balance.

The part you miss is when they also follow up talking about the stats with quotes about how statistics even when they're good are only so meaningful -- that's true, and any law enforcement official knows it. It's the specifics that matter, not half-cocked comparisons to national averages and adding up all the crimes in every city and then dividing them by the number of cities to see who's "most dangerous." That's just silly.

Nothing else to say to you until you start reading what is actually in front of you before commenting on it.

  Posted by: ladd on Apr 16, 05 | 9:49 am

jarisc, I think the point is that many Melton supporters are claiming that JPD is "fudging" crime statistics. They are spreading this very very serious rumor with absolutely no foundation.

Kate, this is a vital point. I posted on the main crime story about how the media are messing up the crime stories this week by reporting Melton's accusation about cooked numbers as equal fact as the falling crime numbers. Let's try an analogy. Let's say that I am running for mayor against jarisc. I accuse him of being a serial ax murderer in the past. "Jarisc says he has a clean record, and has never been arrested.: Howeve, candidate Donna Ladd says that incumbent jarisc is a serial ax murderer. "Everyone knows it's true," she said. "You can tell by looking at him that he's a serial ax murderer. It's written all over his face."

Fair. Balanced. He said his side; she said hers. What's missing? Truth, factchecking, evidence.

Now, if there had been a rumor floating around for 20 years that jarisc was a serial ax murderer, and no one would dare ask him about it (because it was innuendo with no evidence available), and jarisc wanted to address it in public, he might choose to do just that, as Melton did with rumors about him at the Bravo ladies' breakfast. That's fair game to report his responses. However, to present Melton's unsubstantiated (and vague) accusation as "balance" in a story about the FBI crime stats falling is bad journalism.

  Posted by: ladd on Apr 16, 05 | 11:17 am

Wow... that hurt.

Why are you so bitter? Why is it you lash out personally at anyone that disagrees with you? Are you that insecure?

I read the Clarion Ledger blog, jacksonsnextmayor.com and the JFP site. I strongly disagree with the opinions of many on these sites including what appears to be your arch nemesis "Alan". However, as much as I disagree with him or the others, I respect the way they conduct themselves.

So, please read the disclamer at the bottom of this page and delete yourself. That's what I plan on doing with your bookmark and publication.

  Posted by: jarisc on Apr 16, 05 | 10:37 pm

Jarisc, please. You compleely mischaracterize what is written, both here and on the mayoral forum thread. You say the JFP is turning your stomach and should be ashamed, etc. Then you go all sensitive and hurt on us. Don't take your tone, if you can't take it when someone answers in the same tone. And note that I didn't say you're a dumb-a**; I said your reading comprehension of this story above is "dumb-a**." Which it is. Or was.

I'm not bitter -- in fact, I'm a pretty happy kind of gal -- however, I have watched this perception thing hurt this city for at least two years now, and I'm sick of it. People who want to dump on the city ignore over and over again the FACTS and then distill a story such as this into:

"Are you saying that we don't really have a crime problem?"

Of course we have a crime problem. Every town I've ever lived in had one, including Nantucket (my first friend out there in rich-land where I worked for a while was murdered) and my hometown (big one there). That's so not the point here. The point here is when politicians twist statistics all out of contect to try to get elected by tearing down the city's successes. People who would do that aren't people we want leading us. Bluster never prevented a crime.

  Posted by: iTodd on Apr 17, 05 | 2:14 pm

BTW, this is Donna -- not ToddS. Apparently, I'm signed in on his account. My words, though; not his.

  Posted by: iTodd on Apr 17, 05 | 2:15 pm

What about the meaningless stat that Harvey drops every day? "I have raised the number of police officers from this to that.." ohh give me a break. And that should make me feel safer? Have we seen this have any real affect on these so called useless crime stats?

Politicians, I mean all of em, are notorious for spouting stats.

Stats, no stats, I generally don't feel safe in alot of Jackson. Telling me its just a silly perception or telling me there are more cops on the streets doesn't change a darn thing for me.

BTW, Donna, I am assuming this organization of yours has endorsed Harvey for this election?

  Posted by: bluedog on Apr 20, 05 | 4:06 pm

Why is the number of police officers "meaningless"? That's meaningful to many people I assure you. At least, it's verifiably true, which is the main problem with these "rankings." Otherwise, though, I'm on record as believing that crime statistics are basically meaningless no matter what they show. People don't like to remember it, but I also have shown that numbers being promoted in the past weren't as good as they sounded, even as they weren't as bad as the media were presenting. But many people just want to see what they want to see.

The point is: Decide for yourself what is meaningful, but at least have the brains to look at the real context and don't just use statistics to support some political desire.

No, the JFP has not endorsed anyone, yet. We do that in the last issue before the primary after our staff has looked through the materials on the candidates and discussed the information that we've found to date. Endorsements should come after you have done thorough research on issues, interviewed them as thoroughly as possible, followed them to various events, watched how candidates behave and factcheck what they say, which we've been doing for over two months now. The endorsements come at the end of that process.

  Posted by: ladd on Apr 20, 05 | 4:13 pm

bluedog, other than the crime statistics themselves, the number of police officers on the street is one of the few measurable figures that indicates how much progress is being made. From my point of view, any prospective mayor who says s/he's going to be "tough on crime" but does not suggest increasing the number of police officers is not serious about addressing the crime problem. Patrols are the #1 deterrent for criminals right now. More patrols mean less crime. Likewise, more teachers means smaller classes. It's all about resources.


Cheers,

TH

  Posted by: Tom Head on Apr 20, 05 | 4:21 pm

Melton isn't "feel goody" enough for this place to endorse- lets not fool ourselves. But I respect your organizations future endorsement- I really do.

Ladd, the point is, the number of cops on the street is just another stat with an empty promise. You could add 5000 cops to the city, but without leadership that ensures that you are getting better results (results people can feel, see), the number of cops means abosolutely zilch to me.

  Posted by: bluedog on Apr 20, 05 | 4:27 pm

You could add 5000 cops to the city, but without leadership that ensures that you are getting better results (results people can feel, see), the number of cops means abosolutely zilch to me.

I can agree with that part, blue, at least to some extent.

Now define "leadership" for me.

  Posted by: ladd on Apr 20, 05 | 4:30 pm

Is there any research on the 'lag time' between something like the measurable drop in crime (as reported by the JPD/FBI) and the society's perception/level of fear? I mean, to a certain extent, isn't there a level of Pavlovian response that needs to be overcome by the population at large? It makes sense to me on an intuitive level that first the crime rate drops, and then, after some unspecified time, people start to "feel safer." But, I could be totally whacked out on that notion. And then there are the people who, once convinced that a place is 'dangerous' keep that perception for the rest of their lives. I know there are certain things that I respond to, based on my perceptions of what they were 20 years ago, rather than how they are now.

My point being - well, I'm not sure. Just that some people are never going to feel safe in jackson. Some people may start to feel safe, once they start to feel the effects of the lower crime rate, but that may take some time.

  Posted by: kate on Apr 20, 05 | 4:56 pm

Well, Kate, being that the very same crime rhetoric is being used today that was used during Jim Crow to scare people, I think the lag time must be long. ;-)

Sorry to be flip. I don't know about that research on point in particular. We should look (help is welcome here, bloggers). So much of the problem we have here is media sensationalism. As media have become more corporate, they have relied more and more on sensationalizationówhich is a cheap way to keep readership/viewership up (which is what ad rates are based on, which is where the money comes from). Corporate media don't want to spend money on investigative reporting and civic journalism (and the truth might offend big car dealerships and such), so this is the kind of "journalism" we get stuck with.

Thus, the media themselves spread the "perception of fear," or fear based on perceptions of powerlessness. It doesn't help that, around here, we have so much lingering race politics, and people who don't want certain people in power. So they grab onto the rhetoric. It's really hilarious now to watch the same people who LOVED statistics a couple years ago when they thought they helped them more now say that statistics don't matter. ;-) You really can't have it both ways.

That's the point with the Morgan-Quitno story: how many candidates (Barbour, Carroll and now Melton have probably been the worst offenders) have tried to use them for convenience, but lifting them way out of context -- and relying on the very same statistics that they say aren't true when used to show that crime is dropping. It would be laughable, if it weren't being used in such a dangerous way that will ultimately hurt the city. That's been my biggest concern with perception-gate all along, and why I haven't let up, even as dumb-asses around town try to turn what I say into the truly stupid conclusion of "you're saying crime is only a perception, aren't you? Huh? Huh?"

No, Needle Brain, I want to say back. I'm saying that if we continue to overblow crime to benefit certain politicos, and scare people to death, that we are going to lose more and more of our tax base, along with the will and determination to work together to do the myriad of things it will take to get crime even lower.

(I just made an executive decision to launch ad hominem attacks on a compositeóMr. Needle Brain; we'll call him Mr. Brain, for short, from now onóof all the non-thinking fearmongers around town. I apologize for my rude digression, but no I'm not talking about any one person. But you know who you are. <grin>)

  Posted by: ladd on Apr 20, 05 | 6:59 pm

bluedog: You know, if you provide the 5,000 cops I think a dancing bear could probably do something with them to reduce the crime in this city. I have no law enforcement background, but even I know that patrols deter crime, so you pick the neighborhoods where people are being the hardest hit and you increase patrols. It stands to reason that if prostitutes and drug dealers keep having to move from street to street, their business will take a serious hit--witness what happens to a TV show when it moves nights without good advertising--and that will have an effect on other forms of crime.

I mean, I think that's what it all boils down to: Increased patrols, community policing, reducing the truancy and dropout rates, and providing solid after school programs. Make real progress in those four areas and Jackson's crime rate will drop in half almost overnight. Firing the police chief over somebody's vague sweet nothings about leadership will not solve the crime problem. Vague affirmations regarding the importance of after-school programs or community policing will not solve the crime problem. Good strategy, and increased resources, will solve the crime problem.

Now, who's going to bell the cat?

For my part, I'm reaching the conclusion that no matter how much I might respect him as a human being, no matter how disgusting I find the purile and unsubstantiated rumors about him to be, and no matter how many debates he wins, I will not and cannot vote for Frank Melton. He has no plan, he has no strategy, he has no clue. And that, my friends...


Cheers,

TH

  Posted by: Tom Head on Apr 20, 05 | 8:44 pm

I will say that I believe crime is a grave problem. If I talk to somebody who moves to the 'burbs, it's always "Oh, my neighbor got mugged twice in her driveway" or "My business got broken into four times in two months." It isn't "I saw on the news that them thar Jackson crime is bad" or "Oh, a black neighbor moved in down the street." That isn't to say that perception isn't a bigger factor than the actual reality of crime, especially for businesses and people looking to move to Jackson, but I think the reality is really, really rough, not just for the whites who move to the suburbs but especially for folks living in the neighborhoods most affected by the drug trade and the nasty, crime-ridden industry it creates.

But you know what? I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Melton will do any better than Johnson at solving the crime problem. None. In fact, I've seen no evidence that any candidate can do better than Johnson at solving the crime problem. I'm willing to entertain proposals. Hell, if Rick Whitlow has a viable plan that is specific, detailed, better than Johnson's, and can actually be implemented, I'll vote for him. But right now, Johnson is the only one of the three candidates I'm willing to trust with the crime issue. Melton could have been a threat on the issue, but blew it by failing to promote specific policy initiatives. Whitlow has a good nonprofit resume in the area of crime prevention, but that won't help him if he can't prove he'll actually do a better job than Johnson.

I was chatting with a Johnson supporter tonight and, after getting tired of some low blows abut Melton, half-jokingly threatened to vote for Annell Smith. But I know I'll end up voting for Johnson, and I've basically known it all along.


Cheers,

TH

  Posted by: Tom Head on Apr 20, 05 | 8:58 pm

"Oh, a black neighbor moved in down the street."

When I went to get a home loan after moving here the secretary for the loan officer told me her own daughter moved from the very same area I was moving to because the blacks had started moving in the past few years! She didn't know me from Adam, she just "trusted" my skin color that I would understand. I waited about a minute, got up, and went to another bank. Welcome to Jackson! Luckly, I have met many good people in Jackson and the Metro area who easily make one forget about unfortunate events like that.

  Posted by: tortoise on Apr 20, 05 | 11:15 pm

I, too, believe crime is a serious problemóin Jackson, in Mississippi and in America. What I do not believe is that a bunch of hot-air posturing is going to do anything about it. In fact, I know it won't; research and history proves that out. What will do something about it calming the hysteria, and getting down to business taking care of the causes of it. I cannot STAND when someone tries to blame any one thing for crimeówhether it's bad parenting, race (the worst, of course), guns, "them" (whoever the hell "they" are) or whatever. Obviously, there are myriad causes of crime; therefore, we must come up with myriad solutions. And that isn't done by screaming all the time about crime. It's really a bit embarassing for me as a Mississippians to hear the nonsense B.S. that's said about crime here. Of course, I heard in New York, too, but the difference was that not as many people believed it the rhetoric.

As for your comment, tortoise, I agree: It is so disgustingóin fact, my worst nightmareóto be considered a racist simply because you're white, therefore, you MUST agree with the back-a** morons. I must admit that I've that happen in a number of places I've lived: D.C., North Dakota, even Massachusetts. However, racism elsewhere never excuses racism anywhereóand the truth is that I have never denied that we Mississippians have further to to because our racism was the most institutionalized. Thus, it will linger the longest the more we resist delberately getting rid of it. I'd sure rather lie on my death bed think, "Well, I did everything I could," than "I was in denial about the truth and spent much of my life defending idiots because I couldn't face the truth."

  Posted by: ladd on Apr 21, 05 | 12:19 am