Rape down, Authorities stumped
Wow, look at this from the WaPo:
(Note: Includes both attempted and completed rapes. Click on image to go to the DoJ Rape Statistics page)
Oh, wow, so does anyone have any idea at all why there is such a dramatic decrease?
One school of thought holds that rape has declined for the same reasons that other violent offenses have: a reduction in the lawlessness associated with crack cocaine, a shrinking population of young people and an increased number of criminals in jail.
Hmm, lock up crackheads, and they can’t rape. OK, there’s a good one.
Another, more hopeful, explanation is that Americans have actually changed the way they think about sexual assault: Women have been taught to avoid unsafe situations, and both boys and girls have been drilled to understand the rules of consent.
Ah, yes, education. That’s a good excuse too.
Heh, OK, the decline in rape has to do with the fact that for some mysterious reason, the reporting rate of these rapes may be down. No real evidence is submitted.
Meanwhile, In totally unrelated news, here’s an interesting map from the NRA.
(Click on image to go to the NRA Right-to-Carry 2006 page)
Red states are ?shall issue? states. That means that if a person applies for a concealed carry permit and that person is qualified (i.e. not a felon and perhaps have undergone a class on firearms laws), then that person can not be denied a permit. Blue states are the same, except that even the requirement to get the government issued “permission slip” is waved. If you aren’t a felon, you can carry.
If course, I’m sure that this virtual total turn-around in the laws of this country since 1987, when Florida passed the first first of the new wave of ?shall issue? law, is completely unrelated to the decline in rape. (correction by Xrlq in comments, thanks)
SayUncle » Hmmm Says :
[...] Rape down, Authorities stumped [...]
2006-06-20 10:33 Permalinktgirsch Says :
Nice try, but see my comment over at Uncle’s place.
2006-06-20 12:14 PermalinkStandard Mischief Says :
I was afraid I?d have to write this comment. The whole point of the blog post was not this is the reason why rape is down but isn?t it funny that for all the contributing factors that went into the apparent decline of this statistic, Pravda on the Potomac would never, ever admit that the likely huge increase in people carrying defensive arms might possibly also be a factor in the equation. With the rest of the nation beginning to grok the ?more guns, less crime? philosophy, WaPo editors seem still stuck in the ?inside the beltway, north of the Potomac? rut.
I tried to contrast the data from the DoJ with stats I got from DC. The problem was that DC was recording ?forcible rapes?, where the DoJ stats are for rapes and attempted rapes. For the gun-free utopia that is DC you can also see that rapes also declined, bottomed out, and then rose again.
If a woman fends off a rape attempt by brandishing a handgun (note, a shot does not even have to be fired), and assuming the
crooks^H^H^H cops aren?t ?cooking the books? on the crime stats, under the DoJ rules it would still get reported. Under DC rules, the woman would likely never submit a report because to do so truthfully, she?d have to admit she was also committing a felony by carrying in DC.So for any deterrent effect to show up in the DoJ data, the bad guy would have to decide that he would rather not rape someone because some random victim might be packing. Do you remember how car rental agencies removed stickers from cars after the ?shall issue? law passed in Florida? What are the odds a random tourist has a carry license? (No, that wasn?t a non sequitur.)
It?s also important to note that the tide in carry licenses didn?t turn until Florida changed their laws. As I noted above, that was in 1987. That?s in the middle of the DoJ data. Clearly other factors are in play.
If I had stronger level of statistical proof that carry laws were the sole reason why rape was down in this country, this post would be written much differently.
2006-06-20 14:29 PermalinkStandard Mischief Says :
Oh yea, I\’m pretty sure cocaine is a powerful vaso-constrictor.
I\’m not speaking from first-hand experience, however, I\’m pretty sure crack=erectile dysfunction, although that might not stop a rape attempt.
Love Boat, (PCP) which was apparently on the scene before crack, might be a different story.
2006-06-20 14:57 PermalinkStandard Mischief Says :
Note: for the non-native speaker, and the subtle humor impaired, I’ve also wrote up this post in HSUL (Hypothetical Snark-Up Language) here.
Subtle humor in the form of snide remarks is used frequently here at the Standard Mischief blog, and although I can’t do this for every single post, hopefully this will count as fulfilling the “reasonable accommodation requirement” towards the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).
2006-06-20 15:30 PermalinkXrlq Says :
Florida led the wave of new “shall issue” laws, but I don’t think they were the first shall-issue state. I’m pretty sure Indiana has been shall-issue since the 1940s or 1950s, for instance.
2006-06-20 16:20 Permalinkben Says :
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2006/04/how-many-times-do-i-have-to-repeat.html
Kevin has the best map. And yeah, Washington State has been shall-issue as long as anyone can remember. In fact, we’re the only state where if you are charged and tried for a gun crime, and it is later determined that you are innocent by reason of self defense, the government must pay your legal bills. No kidding.
2006-06-20 20:55 Permalinktgirsch Says :
SM:
A couple of things. Perhaps WaPo should have cited evidence for the possible causes they did list, but that still doesn’t mean they should have listed “shall issue” as another one. Not only is there absolutely zero evidence that “shall issue” reduces the rape rate, there’s evidence against this. Florida passed shall issue in 1987, and in seven of the next ten years, the rape rate was higher than in 1987. So Florida actually went against a larger nationwide trend in rape rates. From this, you get to “shall issue” helped spur the nationwide decline in rape rate?
If I had stronger level of statistical proof that carry laws were the sole reason why rape was down in this country, this post would be written much differently.
That’s not the problem. The problem is that you don’t have any statistical evidence of any effect. All you have is an apparent coincidence in timing that doesn’t even pass first blush.
Move along people, nothing substantive to see here.
2006-06-21 13:06 PermalinkStandard Mischief Says :
tgirsch Says: A couple of things. Perhaps WaPo should have cited evidence for the possible causes they did list, but that still doesn?t mean they should have listed ?shall issue? as another one.
Why not? I mean, as long as they were just tossing ideas out there and not substantiating them. Again, my point was that they wouldn’t even think about doing that because of their long running anti-RKBA bias.
(Just to toss another idea out there), if you go with the Freakanomics theory (haven’t read it yet), I think they claim that because of a shrinking pool of younger people there’s less crime nowadays.
Not only is there absolutely zero evidence that ?shall issue? reduces the rape rate, there?s evidence against this. Florida passed shall issue in 1987, and in seven of the next ten years, the rape rate was higher than in 1987. So Florida actually went against a larger nationwide trend in rape rates.
You are using data from here I assume? In 1987 (when permits became available) the rate had dipped a bit from the previous year’s 52.7 per 100,000 people to 50.2, then it did indeed increase to a peak of 53.8 in 1993, before declining to a twenty four year low of 44.2 in 2000 (where the data from this source ends).
There are a number of factors we are not controlling for. Perhaps substantial numbers of women didn’t jump on the licensed bandwagon until several years later.
I’m gonna quote you from over at Say Uncle: “The fact of the matter is, crime is a complex system, and you?re not going to pin increases or decreases on any one thing.”
From this, you get to ?shall issue? helped spur the nationwide decline in rape rate?
Yea, there is a statistical bump there, but you are going to have a tough time convincing me that an armed female is actually more likely to be raped. It’s also interesting to note that in the next column over, “Murder” seems to have gone from 11.4 in 1987 to 5.6 in 2000. That’s less than half, a dramatic decrease.
2006-06-22 02:04 Permalink