Out of interest, what is the reasoning behind using homicide rates as a proxy for crime more generally? Countries with (relatively) high rates incarceration for non-violent drug offenders might skew the relationship (Thailand for example).
There is then a second question about whether or not non-violent drug offenders should be imprisoned (at all/at the rates that they are in some countries), but the argument that incarceration is explained by crime might hold in these countries.
Good question—my reasoning was that homicide is well-measured and easy to find online, and should correlate with levels of crime more broadly. I wonder what variable we would want to address the Thailand issue...maybe the share of prisoners who are “violent” would be useful, but I’d be surprised if I could find it for many countries.
I don’t see why one thinks homicide is a good proxy for crime in general. I wonder if a different approach here might be simply focusing on homicide and incarceration to see if that sheds any light.
I didn’t do much research into other cross-country crime measures so I’m definitely curious to learn more about other ways of getting at this.
But to me the most obvious reason to favor homicide is reporting. Partially because it’s fresh in my mind, I’d recommend The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (from 1967). Starting at page 25 they go through changes in reporting that caused huge blips in measured crime in the US. I think the authors may have wanted to play down the crime increase for political reasons, but even discounting them somewhat they do identify issues in measurement that could easily persist today and be way worse in other countries.
Out of interest, what is the reasoning behind using homicide rates as a proxy for crime more generally? Countries with (relatively) high rates incarceration for non-violent drug offenders might skew the relationship (Thailand for example).
There is then a second question about whether or not non-violent drug offenders should be imprisoned (at all/at the rates that they are in some countries), but the argument that incarceration is explained by crime might hold in these countries.
The general reasoning is that homicide generally makes it into the official statistics while a lot of other crime doesn’t always get reported.
It’s not intended as a proxy of what a society criminalizes but a more cultural independent notion of crime.
Thanks for the clarification !
Good question—my reasoning was that homicide is well-measured and easy to find online, and should correlate with levels of crime more broadly. I wonder what variable we would want to address the Thailand issue...maybe the share of prisoners who are “violent” would be useful, but I’d be surprised if I could find it for many countries.
I don’t see why one thinks homicide is a good proxy for crime in general. I wonder if a different approach here might be simply focusing on homicide and incarceration to see if that sheds any light.
I didn’t do much research into other cross-country crime measures so I’m definitely curious to learn more about other ways of getting at this.
But to me the most obvious reason to favor homicide is reporting. Partially because it’s fresh in my mind, I’d recommend The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (from 1967). Starting at page 25 they go through changes in reporting that caused huge blips in measured crime in the US. I think the authors may have wanted to play down the crime increase for political reasons, but even discounting them somewhat they do identify issues in measurement that could easily persist today and be way worse in other countries.