• nezbyte@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    I don’t think it does at this high level. Rural states still have high population centers of varying political and socioeconomic statuses. Tennessee and others have a crime problem along the Mississippi River iirc. There is just so much context lost in a state level generalization.

    • remotelove@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Those are my thoughts as well. The data on the chart starts to get “broken” between states like North Carolina and Tennessee, for example. The chart would be a bit more clear if the numbers were shown at the country level and not just by state.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It does, when you correct it by population- that is to say “crime rate per 100k”.

      Large population centers will have more crime simply for having more people (and therefore increased opportunity)

      The data shows a clear indication that more conservative policies lead to more crime. It would be extremely difficult to parse that into per city. (And you would be right in that this data should only be taken broadly.)

      Partly because a state level law simply has more force and influence than city-level ordinances- how extensive and even what a city can enforce generally depends on the state; further its difficult to imagine that a violent crime wouldn’t be covered in state law- meaning it’s the state policy that has the most effect. (For example, sentencing guidelines,)

      Also, studies have found that- as far as elections impacting people’s lives goes- that the race with the greatest impact is actually the state AG. Because they set policy for what crimes take priority in prosecuting, and what sentencing they should be asking for, etc.