- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Do we as a country suck at solving murders, or are detectives under qualified?
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:21 pm
I've gotten into this podcast called "In the Dark" by APM Reports, and it has me really questioning our detective work as a society. I took a few screen caps to show what I'm talking about.
While NYCs murder rate is literally down half from what it was in the 90's and earlier, we hit a stint in the early 2000's where we literally couldn't solve anything.
Looking at the chart, how do we go from solving nearly 80% in the South Side of Chicago area in the 60's, 70's, and half of the 80's, and now we literally can't solve anything.
Los Angeles seems to be steadily improving.
What the hell happened to Baton Rouge in 1996?
It seems New Orleans has had a very tough time solving murders post Katrina.
You can go check out your parish/county here.
While NYCs murder rate is literally down half from what it was in the 90's and earlier, we hit a stint in the early 2000's where we literally couldn't solve anything.
Looking at the chart, how do we go from solving nearly 80% in the South Side of Chicago area in the 60's, 70's, and half of the 80's, and now we literally can't solve anything.
Los Angeles seems to be steadily improving.
What the hell happened to Baton Rouge in 1996?
It seems New Orleans has had a very tough time solving murders post Katrina.
You can go check out your parish/county here.
This post was edited on 10/18/16 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:23 pm to thegreatboudini
Its not that easy to solve a murder, especially if there is no evidence.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:23 pm to thegreatboudini
Because they can't prosecute or convict doesn't mean they aren't solved.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:23 pm to thegreatboudini
I think tv shows like CSI have warped people's perception of how solving a murder works. It's not easy to convict someone.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:25 pm to thegreatboudini
You need to watch The First 48.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:25 pm to thegreatboudini
I would imagine its hard to convict plenty of people because no one is willing to get on the stand. I think detectives know who has done it but cant get anyone to cooperate.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:26 pm to OweO
Murders in low economic areas are extremely tough to solve and usually are the majority of those unsolved cases.
This is for several reasons. They don't trust police and aren't as cooperative, which leads to slower reaction time and less effort on the part of cops. Also it often happens during other illegal activity with unregistered weapons and leaves behind very little evidence.
There aren't a lot of murders in the suburbs and country clubs going unsolved.
ETA:
Without confessions or great evidence like video or something, it is often extremely hard to convict or even charge people of murder.
This is for several reasons. They don't trust police and aren't as cooperative, which leads to slower reaction time and less effort on the part of cops. Also it often happens during other illegal activity with unregistered weapons and leaves behind very little evidence.
There aren't a lot of murders in the suburbs and country clubs going unsolved.
ETA:
Without confessions or great evidence like video or something, it is often extremely hard to convict or even charge people of murder.
This post was edited on 10/18/16 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:26 pm to thegreatboudini
quote:
I've gotten into this podcast called "In the Dark" by APM Reports, and it has me really questioning our detective work as a society. I took a few screen caps to show what I'm talking about.
I knew that this podcast was going to pop here after the mention of the parish that has a 12% clearance rate
Pretty good 8-part series. The Sex offender list episode was really well done and is something I have had a ton of beef with.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:26 pm to thegreatboudini
quote:
it has me really questioning our detective work as a society
Most smart people don't follow the career path of being a detective.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:27 pm to Tiger Ryno
quote:
Because they can't prosecute or convict doesn't mean they aren't solved.
clearance rate only means that someone was charged with a crime.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:28 pm to thegreatboudini
lack of snitches in the USA
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:29 pm to Nado Jenkins83
Chicago is a great example of people simply not cooperating.
They don't trust police and police don't trust them. And snitches get killed in Chiraq.
They don't trust police and police don't trust them. And snitches get killed in Chiraq.
This post was edited on 10/18/16 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:30 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
It's not easy to convict someone.
It's not all about convicting someone. In the podcast there was a missing college student in 2002. His car was still there, nothing was disturbed, no signs of him, just vanished. The county detectives told his parents that he fell into the lake and drowned. So his parents had the lake searched; nothing. The county detectives told his parents he was probably absorbed by quciksand around the lake. Parents reached out to professionals, no quicksand in Minnesota at all, basically. The county detectives told his parents he fell in the lake and was eaten by snapping turtles. Professionals came in and said theres no way snapping turtles could eat a human.
It's not just about murders, but missing people, unsolved cases and detectives throwing out wild possibilities that have nearly zero chance of being true.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:31 pm to thegreatboudini
How long was Dexter Morgan allowed to roam free? And he was surrounded by detectives everyday. It's a tough job.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:32 pm to thegreatboudini
One is not exclusive of the other, it is the effect of the other.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:32 pm to dnm3305
quote:
How long was Dexter Morgan allowed to roam free? And he was surrounded by detectives everyday. It's a tough job.
Doakes pinned that fool as a frickin weirdo on day 1.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:34 pm to thegreatboudini
quote:
's not all about convicting someone. In the podcast there was a missing college student in 2002. His car was still there, nothing was disturbed, no signs of him, just vanished. The county detectives told his parents that he fell into the lake and drowned. So his parents had the lake searched; nothing. The county detectives told his parents he was probably absorbed by quciksand around the lake. Parents reached out to professionals, no quicksand in Minnesota at all, basically. The county detectives told his parents he fell in the lake and was eaten by snapping turtles. Professionals came in and said theres no way snapping turtles could eat a human.
Sounds to me like those detectives found the kid and he ran away to chase his dreams in some gay circus, like a cirque de soleil knock off or something. They were doing the parents a favor.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:35 pm to Dire Wolf
Yea, it was assumption parish that had a 12% clearance rate since 2000. Thats obnoxious.
I got frustrated with this newest episode. I mean if you want to kill someone, just got to Stearns County and do it there. They're making decent salaries on our dollars and literally don't know how to do detective work.
I got frustrated with this newest episode. I mean if you want to kill someone, just got to Stearns County and do it there. They're making decent salaries on our dollars and literally don't know how to do detective work.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 3:36 pm to thegreatboudini
Is it possible that as scientific techniques got better and the availability of indisputable evidence of guilt or innocence (i.e. video) became the norm rather than the exception, juries were much less willing to convict and grand juries/DAs less willing to prosecute?
The idea is that if people are used to having evidence available that isn't reliant on human perception or proper handling (i.e. recordings and other electronic evidence), then even if they have evidence (forensics, witness testimony, etc.) in front of them that in the past would've been enough for reasonable people to convict or charge, people now may be less likely to act on that evidence because it lacks the indisputable smoking gun.
The idea is that if people are used to having evidence available that isn't reliant on human perception or proper handling (i.e. recordings and other electronic evidence), then even if they have evidence (forensics, witness testimony, etc.) in front of them that in the past would've been enough for reasonable people to convict or charge, people now may be less likely to act on that evidence because it lacks the indisputable smoking gun.
This post was edited on 10/18/16 at 3:47 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News