Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually I think we are talking about a difference between thoughts and actions.
Hate crime is an actual action. There may be stares, etc at someone different but that is different than an action.
Several times in my life I have been the only white male in a minority area for days at a time. I've been stared at and whispered about in those situations. So I agree not having others around "like me" is very uncomfortable.
But that is different than actions against someone who is different.
We can't collect data on what is in someone's mind or thoughts.
But on anonymous message boards we learn how much intolerance exists inside everyone.
When someone starts throwing out words like "redneck", "religious nuts", etc. that is no more tolerant than someone who hates someone because of sexual orientation, race, etc. Only the words are changing, it is still hate.
Americans' have not completely agreed on anything for over 200 years, that is why Congress has 2 houses (the small states and large states didn't trust each other).
What has made things work is an ability to agree to disagree; a willingness to compromise not to have it all "my" way; and a respect that someone else is different than me.
Basically we tolerate each other, not agree. And to tolerate both sides have to respect, compromise and find a middle solution. No name calling, no hate actions, etc.
The problem that I see though is that the ability to compromise, to tolerate the "others" by both sides, to find a way to live around people we don't agree with, to agree to disagree, is disappearing.
We are segregating ourselves voluntarily.
Maybe that Russian professor is right, the US is going to split apart. But it won't be immigration or the economy that causes it.
If the US ever falls apart it will be due to an intolerance of other ideas, people, and places. It will be the loss of the ability to be around those we don't agree with.
This is a situation where I think local knowledge (or sterotypes as you refer to them) is probably more useful than the data, but I agree the data doesn't support them. I just don't think the data here is valid.
Of course you don't, because the data don't support your assumptions. If you can so easily discount figures based on your hunches, why should we take any figures you provide any more seriously? You're just pushing your segregationist agenda.
I agree the FBI crime statistics is interesting data, but I don't think its valid data. In SF if you have rainbow sticker on your car and someone keys it, I think that crime is much more likely to be reported as a hate crime than say in Citrus Heights where I think the locals are much more likely to treat its as just vandalism. In SF, you are much more likely to dealing with a gay cop than in Citrus Heights . Also if you are trying to become police chief in SF, how your adminstration responds to hate crime reporting is probably going to be a much bigger deal. For both of those reasons, I think hate crime reporting is going to vary depending on where the crime is filed.
Where I think the data is much more likely to be comparable is hate crimes resulting in death. Murder investigations are taken much more seriously and there is going to be more people reviewing those cases. That is the type of crime where I don't think reporting levels are going to vary based upon where the crime is filed. I think if someone is killed because they are gay in San Francisco or in Citrus Heights, everywhere that is likely to be recorded as a hate crime. That is the type of data I think would be valid and useful for changing my mind. But right now, I really don't think the FBI data here is that reliable.
My experience is that when people have really strong feelings about something. Usually its for a valid reason. My hunch is the reason Callmesteph hates/fears Sacramento is because she was beat up or someone did something to some she cares about because of her sexual orientation. This probably occured when she lived here.
I think wburg is a well enough intentioned guy, but I do think his pride in Sacramento is probably blinding him to the real risks homosexuals do face in Sacramento.
Of course you don't, because the data don't support your assumptions. If you can so easily discount figures based on your hunches, why should we take any figures you provide any more seriously? You're just pushing your segregationist agenda.
Oh, and it's data "are", not "is."
The FBI data that Fresno Fact sited suggested that hate crimes involving sexual orientation occurred 5 times more frequently in Sacramento than in Fresno. The reporting areas have pretty similiar populations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FresnoFacts
But in terms of reported incidents, there are more hate crimes per capita in other areas than in the Central Valley. Here are a few sample cities.
Table 13-CALIFORNIA - Hate Crime Statistics 2007 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_13ca.htm - broken link)
Sacramento (population 460,546) 5 incidents in 2007
Fresno (population 472,170) 1 incident in 2007
Do you honestly believe that people living in Sacramento face five times the risk of people living in Fresno when it comes to hate crimes based upon sexual orientation?
If not how do you explain the difference in the FBI statictics? The reporting areas are City of Sacramento and the City of Fresno?
Where I think the data is much more likely to be comparable is hate crimes resulting in death. Murder investigations are taken much more seriously and there is going to be more people reviewing those cases. That is the type of crime where I don't think reporting levels are going to vary based upon where the crime is filed. I think if someone is killed because they are gay in San Francisco or in Citrus Heights, everywhere that is likely to be recorded as a hate crime. That is the type of data I think would be valid and useful for changing my mind. But right now, I really don't think the FBI data here is that reliable.
The data is as reported, which is why I underlined reported.
There could be variation due to things like people attracted to San Francisco to commit the crime since it is considered a "gay" city.
We don't know but it is the data that is available.
More violent crimes? Well there were only 2 homicides in the entire state listed as a hate crime of any type. Only 373 aggravated assaults in California connected to a hate crime for any reason.
That also becomes a small number to try to extrapolate from.
Table 11 - Hate Crime Statistics 2007 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_11.htm - broken link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubu
The FBI data that Fresno Fact sited suggested that hate crimes involving sexual orientation occurred 5 times more frequently in Sacramento than in Fresno. The reporting areas have pretty similiar populations.
Do you honestly believe that people living in Sacramento face five times the risk of people living in Fresno when it comes to hate crimes based upon sexual orientation?
If not how do you explain the difference in the FBI statictics? The reporting areas are City of Sacramento and the City of Fresno?
Why are you surprised? It could be possible or do you let an opinion of Fresno influence you.
Fresno has a lower crime rate overall than Sacramento.
For example, the city of Fresno only had 40 homicides in 2008, the city of Sacramento had what, something like 47 or 48.
So we could extrapolate that it is due to a lower crime rate.
But it also could be other reasons, demographics of the population, for example.
All I know is that this is the data. Its quantified as opposed to anecdotal.
The data is as reported, which is why I underlined reported.
There could be variation due to things like people attracted to San Francisco to commit the crime since it is considered a "gay" city.
We don't know but it is the data that is available.
More violent crimes? Well there were only 2 homicides in the entire state listed as a hate crime of any type. Only 373 aggravated assaults in California connected to a hate crime for any reason.
That also becomes a small number to try to extrapolate from.
Table 11 - Hate Crime Statistics 2007 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_11.htm - broken link)
I agree with really small sample sizes, the data isn't very reliable. That is problem with this data set. When you have only 373 reports of state of 36 million, who is reporting hate crime and how a jurisdiction tabulates them becomes very important.
Maybe hate crimes are more prevalent in SF because there is more homosexuals there or maybe reported hate crimes are more prevalent in SF because of better reporting. To me the dataset doesn't really answer that question and the sample sizes are so small you can't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FresnoFacts
Why are you surprised? It could be possible or do you let an opinion of Fresno influence you.
Fresno has a lower crime rate overall than Sacramento.
For example, the city of Fresno only had 40 homicides in 2008, the city of Sacramento had what, something like 47 or 48.
So we could extrapolate that it is due to a lower crime rate.
But it also could be other reasons, demographics of the population, for example.
All I know is that this is the data. Its quantified as opposed to anecdotal.
The big difference is the disparity in data. According to your stats, there are five times as many hate crimes against homosexuals in Sacramento vs Fresno. That suggests you are 500% more likely to face a hate crime in Sac vs Fresno if you are gay. But the homcide rate in Sac is only 17% greater in Sac [47/40] again using your assumptions. That is a huge disparity in a certain catergories of crime.
If there were widespread difference between Sac and SF or between Fresno and SF, I would be more inclined to weigh those differences more because the populations are fairly distinct (more homosexuals, higher levels of education, less family formation in SF). But I suspect that the populations in Sac and Fresno are pretty similiar.
Given the very small sample sizes and huge potential for sampling error in this data, I think the anecdotal evidence is still probably more reliable.
Do you honestly believe that people living in Sacramento face five times the risk of people living in Fresno when it comes to hate crimes based upon sexual orientation?
I don't "believe" one way or the other. The data collected speak for themselves. If you have other data, then present them; if all you have is your opinion that "everyone knows" that Sacramento and Fresno are filled with deranged "Deliverance" type psycho rednecks, then I have no confidence whatsoever in the validity of your opinions. You're just arguing against the data presented because you think it shouldn't be right.
What the data shows is that there is basically zero risk of dealing with a hate crime in any of these juridictions.
If there are 5 incidents in a population of 460,546, that means your risk of dealing with a hate crime in a given year is .001085% in Sacramento. In Fresno there is a population 472,170 and just one incident, your risk of dealing with a hate crime is .000212% in any given year.
Moreover the differences between these jurisdictions are even smaller. When you are dealing with percentage differences this small, its tough to argue that data shows meaningful differences between any jurisdiction. Moreover when you are dealing with differences this small, differences in procedure, data collection, cultural norms about reporting incidents may very well explain differences in outcome between the jurisdictions. When rates of incidents are this low, almost anything could explain the differences between the juridictions.
Lastly, while I used Sacramento and Fresno as examples here, I do feel that arguements here probably apply statewide at a minimum.
If there are 5 incidents in a population of 460,546, that means your risk of dealing with a hate crime in a given year is .001085% in Sacramento. In Fresno there is a population 472,170 and just one incident, your risk of dealing with a hate crime is .000212% in any given year.
Moreover the differences between these jurisdictions are even smaller. When you are dealing with percentage differences this small, its tough to argue that data shows meaningful differences between any jurisdiction. Moreover when you are dealing with differences this small, differences in procedure, data collection, cultural norms about reporting incidents may very well explain differences in outcome between the jurisdictions. When rates of incidents are this low, almost anything could explain the differences between the juridictions.
Actually you cannot apply the numbers that way. You are applying a hate crime against someone for sexual orientation against the population at large. A better comparison would be against the subgroup of homosexuals. Even that though would be tough without details on the actual crime.
Unfortunately I do not know of any reliable numbers of homosexuals by city. Like any group some cities will have a larger population of a subgroup than other cities so we cannot use a standard number like 10% or 7.2% to apply to all cities.
So it could be a difference in the number of homosexuals in a city.
Also just FYI, the FBI has pretty decent standards on the data from law enforcement. In fact they leave some areas out of the Universal Crime Reports due to the data not meeting their standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardius
Given the very small sample sizes and huge potential for sampling error in this data, I think the anecdotal evidence is still probably more reliable.
The problem with anecdotal is that it gets skewed by individuals who see the world based on their value and belief system.
For example, just because an area has a high number of religious people doesn't mean it would be a problem for someone who is different. There are many churches that accept homosexuality. And many people attend a church but do not accept every single one of its teachings.
A different example about anecdotes would be ethicity/race. Some people see a Hispanic and assume the person is illegal. Or they assume they must be Mexican when they could be Central American. But that can be assumption not reality.
And the mind is an interesting thing, we can interpret things many different ways. Heck different eyewitnesses will remember the same event differently.
So anecdotal evidence can be very unreliable, more so than quantified. It is why it doesn't get relied on for many decisions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
