Do you have data backing this claim? For example, homicides (that are not a subject for reporting bias) don’t follow a uniform distribution, so I would expect other crimes to also be non-uniform.
Here is a survey of US youths that supports this premise: https://monitoringthefuture.org/data/panel/demographic-subgr...
It appears to show generally more frequent use in men than women, younger than older and until somewhat recently, white than black or hispanic.
The above linked data show self-reported cannabis use within +/- 10% over the relevant pre-legalization period (before 2012), if anything with a slight advantage to whites. Drug arrest and incarceration rates vary by much, much more (factors of 2-6 between whites and blacks). Against that, use rates of 15 vs 13ish vs 12.5ish are as good as uniform , esp. on a survey with all the inherent variability therein (even for one as competent and longstanding as the cited work).
So what's the quibble? That the shares aren't exactly equal? Or that there are other demographic cuts with larger differences (and, y'know, aligned carceral disparities)? Or that cannabis use isn't representative of 'petty crime'?
> Every demographic commits petty crimes and code violations at about the same rate
.. is not actually true, so better not to claim it as part of a strong argument.
I’m not the one who brought up the nitpick in the first place, so you can argue with them instead if you prefer people didn’t do so in the first place.
As I understand it, people went to prison mostly for selling or possessing amounts that are implying selling. Which might explain the difference. Would you go to prison for possessing a single joint back then?
Yes, Harvard Professor Timothy Leary was sentenced to 30 years in prison (!) for having a single partially-smoked joint in his car.
I think there's an ingrained sense of revulsion, in all of us that live in the cultural era that descended from Enlightenment ideals of equality for all, against the idea that there exist observable group-level differences on nearly any metric you could think of, but that doesn't make it any less true.
If you think people of certain ethnic, racial, political, or religious demographics are more likely to download a song without permissions, I'd like to know what demographics you think are the most likely and least likely to do it.
Because I don't know of a single person in my life who has a computer and hasn't done it.
That is not a crime.
Uploading/distributing/broadcasting a song without copyright permission to do so, might conditionally be a crime, if that usage does not fall within "Fair Use" such as for education, journalism or commentary.
Let's stop ceding more power and control to the copyright cartel, and be careful not to repeat their propaganda that misleads people into thinking sharing books or other media needs to always involve a payment to some publishing corporation.
Depends on your jurisdiction.
Because in my jurisdiction, you're wrong. :)
Crime rates are likely different for different socioeconomic classes for many reasons, but also the socioeconomic class likely determines in part the types of crimes.
For example, poor people are more likely to do petty crime and physical crimes, while rich people tend to do complex frauds involving large sums.
So you cannot compare rates for one particular crime across socioeconomic groups because they will gravitate towards the opportunities that are present to their class.
I read it as a scenario / "even if" for the presented thought experiment, not a load-bearing assertion about reality. As in the argument being made works equally well whether either way, and trying to challenge it misses the point.
"All zebras are red"
"Actually, if you look at studies, you can see that horses come in all types of colours. So I would expect zebras to be the same"
"Horses are not zebras, that should be all the proof you need to accept that all zebras are red."
There is very serious bias in which deaths are labelled homicides, and in who is held responsible for them. The idea that homicide stats are bias-free is weirdly pervasive, but absolutely without basis, on either the victimization or (even moreso, since the prior bias also impacts this on top of the direct bias applicable to it) perpetration side.