Massachusetts once again most violent state in the Northeast. (Boston: high crime, versus)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Small size of RI is not conducive to big business illicit activity. Street gang culture is not prevalent there.

A lot of the rest of your post makes sense, but I disagree with that statement. I think it's very prevalent especially in much of South Providence. It's different from Boston, gangs are less organized and entrenched. A much higher proportion of Providence is ghetto, although the worst of Providence doesn't match the worst of Boston. Providence is a drug source city, Boston not so much these days (most of it comes from Lawrence to the N and Providence to the S). Overall in some ways it's not as bad, other ways it's worse.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by massnative71

A lot of the rest of your post makes sense, but I disagree with that statement. I think it's very prevalent especially in much of South Providence. It's different from Boston, gangs are less organized and entrenched. A much higher proportion of Providence is ghetto, although the worst of Providence doesn't match the worst of Boston. Providence is a drug source city, Boston not so much these days (most of it comes from Lawrence to the N and Providence to the S). Overall in some ways it's not as bad, other ways it's worse.

Yea I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying here. Street gangs exist of course in RI and a lot of PROVIDENCE is ghetto but like you said it’s not as entrenched and the violence in the worst parts of Boston is worse and Boston’s ghetto is the size of all of providence...with additional working class type areas scattered theoughout the city. The entrenchment and organization and violence of Boston is notable. Boston is still a major area of illicit activity besides simply drugs. People In Lawrence Brockton Lowell Springfield etc usually have networks or family in Boston due to the size and centrality.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by redplum33

This is hilarious. Have you ever been to RI? Are you just repeating what your facebook friends told you?

I was literally on Atwells Avenue in Providence at 9 Am this morning. My mother lives in RI. I’ve taken the CR from Hyde Park to RI, I’ve played HS Bball in RI, I’ve worked repairingb gymnasium floors in RI, I’ve shopped at providence place, i have a friend who runs NuWorld Promotions in Providence, ive partied at Ultra and Lupos, Ive toured Brown, visited a Cape Verdean pal in Pawtucket, I’ve driven through Olneyville.. Providence is run down but there’s nothing to suggest gang culture is worse there than in MA.

Anyway I think my anecdote is supported by the stats in question.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

You know, I'm not a fan of MA gun laws, and am a member of GOAL, but even I must say it's a stretch to say that the level of violence in MA is directly correlates to gun laws or lack of their effectiveness. Yes, our neighbors to the north may enjoy less violence overall, but a quick google search of population by state shows the MA population is equal to that of the other 5 New England states combined.

If anything, I'd blame it on population density. Jam enough people in close enough with varying socioeconomic diversity and **** happens.

This, this, this ... it's why simple compensation for population (e.g., x1000) does not accurately correct stats between states like NH/VT and CT/MA. It's hard to assault someone, or find a reason to, when you rarely interact with other humans. Just look at the crime rate differential between summer and winter Boston - when people retreat from the streets due to winter weather, the violent rates drop significantly despite a significant uptick in student population (vs. summer).

Add in other factors like median age, and yeah ... comparisons to ME or VT are laughable.

[OyCrumbler]

Now, will the legalization of weed and essentially taking organized criminals outside of that revenue stream for the most part create any notable difference in Massachusetts crime rates?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

This, this, this ... it's why simple compensation for population (e.g., x1000) does not accurately correct stats between states like NH/VT and CT/MA. It's hard to assault someone, or find a reason to, when you rarely interact with other humans. Just look at the crime rate differential between summer and winter Boston - when people retreat from the streets due to winter weather, the violent rates drop significantly despite a significant uptick in student population (vs. summer).

Add in other factors like median age, and yeah ... comparisons to ME or VT are laughable.

You are generally a level headed poster, who is reasonably objective at least in relation to a few others that posted in this thread. So let me ask you this...what is this fixation on the 3 northern NE states? Of COURSE a state like VT will be statistically safer than more urban states like MA. But that is really a very small part of the Northeast, why do you continue to overlook its urban peers like RI, CT, NY, NJ and PA? All states with major cities, comparable median age, MA is on the low end of poverty and racial diversity...I can see why somebody who hasn't been personally affected by violence might just shrug at the stats with a big "whatever, MA is still better than....". We love to boast about is being #1 and the first in everything, and say Gov. Baker is doing an "amazing job", etc. I'm not your typical Ma$$hole. I see shortcomings. I see problems that need to be fixed. I hold leaders accountable. Clearly, Mass. has a lot of work to do in some areas.


But back to the low-density/ don't interact with other humans premise; there are plenty of rural areas with higher crime rates than some cities (particularly in the South and Appalachia).

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by massnative71

You are generally a level headed poster, who is reasonably objective at least in relation to a few others that posted in this thread. So let me ask you this...what is this fixation on the 3 northern NE states? Of COURSE a state like VT will be statistically safer than more urban states like MA. But that is really a very small part of the Northeast, why do you continue to overlook its urban peers like RI, CT, NY, NJ and PA? All states with major cities, comparable median age, MA is on the low end of poverty and racial diversity...I can see why somebody who hasn't been personally affected by violence might just shrug at the stats with a big "whatever, MA is still better than....". We love to boast about is being #1 and the first in everything, and say Gov. Baker is doing an "amazing job", etc. I'm not your typical Ma$$hole. I see shortcomings. I see problems that need to be fixed. I hold leaders accountable. Clearly, Mass. has a lot of work to do in some areas.


But back to the low-density/ don't interact with other humans premise; there are plenty of rural areas with higher crime rates than some cities (particularly in the South and Appalachia).

I'm not dismissing it, just restating that compared to states of equal density, Massachusetts numbers aren't out of line nationally.

I do agree that some other northeast states appear to be doing much better despite equivalent issues of density and diversity - namely RI and NJ which are the densest states in the union. PA and NY are, as a state, less dense and less diverse than MA so the numbers don't seem notably better.

This leads to inevitable question: does any of this data really matter when police departments have systemically been under reporting crime for decades? I personally don't place much faith in violent crime stats beyond murder rate as it's far too easy for departments to under report rape, agg assault, etc. when the populace is under privileged. If you limit your metrics to murder and non-neg manslaughter, Massachusetts looks quite safe nationally. RI still fairs better, where as CT and NJ fair worse.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

This leads to inevitable question: does any of this data really matter when police departments have systemically been under reporting crime for decades? I personally don't place much faith in violent crime stats beyond murder rate as it's far too easy for departments to under report rape, agg assault, etc. when the populace is under privileged. If you limit your metrics to murder and non-neg manslaughter, Massachusetts looks quite safe nationally. RI still fairs better, where as CT and NJ fair worse.

Yup, differences in reporting have a significant impact on rates. Always have, always will, despite rules and policies installed at a National level to standardize them.


And you're right, things like temperature (and changes in such), day light length, the combination of those things (and more), demographics (esp young men in a certain age class of certain socio economic status) have very large impacts.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by massnative71

You are generally a level headed poster, who is reasonably objective at least in relation to a few others that posted in this thread. So let me ask you this...what is this fixation on the 3 northern NE states? Of COURSE a state like VT will be statistically safer than more urban states like MA. But that is really a very small part of the Northeast, why do you continue to overlook its urban peers like RI, CT, NY, NJ and PA? All states with major cities, comparable median age, MA is on the low end of poverty and racial diversity...I can see why somebody who hasn't been personally affected by violence might just shrug at the stats with a big "whatever, MA is still better than....". We love to boast about is being #1 and the first in everything, and say Gov. Baker is doing an "amazing job", etc. I'm not your typical Ma$$hole. I see shortcomings. I see problems that need to be fixed. I hold leaders accountable. Clearly, Mass. has a lot of work to do in some areas.


But back to the low-density/ don't interact with other humans premise; there are plenty of rural areas with higher crime rates than some cities (particularly in the South and Appalachia).

MA is more diverse than PA and RI, hiigher poverty than NJ and CT. It’s fits in 100% with NJPARICTNY and not at all with MEVTNH in really anyway when we’re talking crime and demography.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Yup, differences in reporting have a significant impact on rates. Always have, always will, despite rules and policies installed at a National level to standardize them.


And you're right, things like temperature (and changes in such), day light length, the combination of those things (and more), demographics (esp young men in a certain age class of certain socio economic status) have very large impacts.

If you really want to see this, just look at comparison between homicide and assault rates between New Orleans and Boston:

City Murder Assault

New Orleans 41.7 423.4
Boston 5.7 431.9

There's basically a factor of ten difference in the ratio of homicides to assaults. That is unlikely to be real.