Boost your local economy - murder old people

[nzric]

I just wrote a cynical comment on a science blog and thought I'd copy it here for anyone's thoughts:

Here's the start of the original article:

http://scienceblog.com/39134/iowa-state-team-calculates-societal-costs-of-five-major-crimes-finds-murder-at-17-25-million/

AMES, Iowa — Murder takes an obvious toll on society in terms of the loss of human life, but what does it actually cost each time there’s a murder? It’s about $17.25 million according a recent Iowa State University study.

Matt DeLisi, an ISU associate professor of sociology and director of the criminal justice program, led a team of five Iowa State graduate students on the study of 654 convicted and incarcerated murderers. Expanding upon earlier monetization estimates, they calculated the costs of five crimes — murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault and burglary — in terms of the victim costs, criminal justice system costs, lost productivity estimates for both the victim and the criminal, and estimates on the public’s resulting willingness to pay to prevent future violence.


Here's my comment:

"Cost or value?

Going by the flawed reasoning in the study, a small town could really benefit from having a serial killer, especially if the killer is a respected member of the community who murders elderly residents and doesn’t get caught.

The productivity of the elderly victim is nil, since they’re not working. Their assets can be sold, which re-circulates $ into the community. Also, any productivity losses for the criminal and criminal justice costs – which would have been a large part of the study’s calculation – only count if the killer is caught.

Also, the killings would bring in money in the form of hotel and restaurant business, media attention, and jobs (police, real estate agents, cleaning companies, funeral parlours, florists, antique dealers, refrigeration suppliers …). Any loss of $ from reduced tourism into the town is conditional on whether there was tourism there in the first place, and if they were particularly gruesome murders there’s the increased tourism & potential marketing for serial killer tours and ghost hunting.

Yes, the above comment is written with tongue placed very firmly in cheek. It’s disgusting to think that a small town might want a serial killer, but it’s equally disgusting for Iowa State University to reduce rape to a dollar figure."

[Professor Yaffle]

Going by the flawed reasoning in the study, a small town could really benefit from having a serial killer, especially if the killer is a respected member of the community who murders elderly residents and doesn’t get caught.


Wow, that Harold Shipman was a great guy... until he got caught.

[nzric]

That's what the study seems to imply (if you read my full post you'll see i disagree)

[AgeGap]

That's what the study seems to imply (if you read my full post you'll see i disagree)

From the link.
While research attaching cost estimates to heinous crimes may appear may appear a bit cold in nature, DeLisi says it’s actually conducted with prevention in mind.

[bit_pattern]

post deleted

[Ducky]

Look at that, the crystal in my hand just turned red.

[Skwinty]

Look at that, the crystal in my hand just turned red.

Your reading for the day Ducky.:D


Physically, red has always been associated with blood... and, in turn, to the heart and circulation. Even wearing red, can affect certain personalities to be more dynamic. If you are in need of a little "push" to become more extroverted, or need some courage to face a certain problem or person, your ruby crystal ball could help you!
Upon awakening, immediately gaze into your ruby crystal ball. Think forward to the day's tasks....feel your energy-level rise..you can gather courage to face your daily challenges!
Who said colors can't affect your energy?

[Darat]

Wow, that Harold Shipman was a great guy... until he got caught.

And even afterwards - after all he killed himself saving us a lot of money.

[Darat]

I don't think it is wrong to know how much in financial terms a crime costs society, I think it is a very useful figure to have and whether we like it or not costing the value of a life crops up in many policy decisions. Of course the issue is when only the financial cost is considered and you have a system that only values things by their monetary value.

[Ducky]

Your reading for the day Ducky.:D


Physically, red has always been associated with blood... and, in turn, to the heart and circulation. Even wearing red, can affect certain personalities to be more dynamic. If you are in need of a little "push" to become more extroverted, or need some courage to face a certain problem or person, your ruby crystal ball could help you!
Upon awakening, immediately gaze into your ruby crystal ball. Think forward to the day's tasks....feel your energy-level rise..you can gather courage to face your daily challenges!
Who said colors can't affect your energy?

I appreciate the reading, but something tells me you damned kids missed the reference. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/) Now get off my lawn.

[Skwinty]

Now get off my lawn.

I would, but you keep spreading manure and encouraging weeds to grow everywhere.:p

[fagin]

I appreciate the reading, but something tells me you damned kids missed the reference. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/) Now get off my lawn.

Jenny Agutter was hot.

[TragicMonkey]

That's awful. You shouldn't murder people for economic gain, you should murder them for the sheer enjoyment of it. Otherwise it's not as fun, it's just, somehow, almost sordid.

[Tailgater]

Someone was up late watching Logan's Run.

[shemp]

That's awful. You shouldn't murder people for economic gain, you should murder them for the sheer enjoyment of it. Otherwise it's not as fun, it's just, somehow, almost sordid.

You also endanger your amateur status.

[willhaven]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/if-the-heat-doesnt-kill-the-elderly-i-will,11152/

[TragicMonkey]

You also endanger your amateur status.

Exactly! What's next, corporate sponsorship? Wearing a big advertisement as you slay?

[Piscivore]

Exactly! What's next, corporate sponsorship? Wearing a big advertisement as you slay?

Somehow I don't think Depends and Geritol are going to be big sponsors.

[FenerFan]

Jenny Agutter was hot.

So was Farrah.

[Travis]

Jenny Agutter was hot.

One of my first crushes. :o

[blutoski]

I just wrote a cynical comment on a science blog and thought I'd copy it here for anyone's thoughts:

Here's the start of the original article:

http://scienceblog.com/39134/iowa-state-team-calculates-societal-costs-of-five-major-crimes-finds-murder-at-17-25-million/

AMES, Iowa — Murder takes an obvious toll on society in terms of the loss of human life, but what does it actually cost each time there’s a murder? It’s about $17.25 million according a recent Iowa State University study.

Matt DeLisi, an ISU associate professor of sociology and director of the criminal justice program, led a team of five Iowa State graduate students on the study of 654 convicted and incarcerated murderers. Expanding upon earlier monetization estimates, they calculated the costs of five crimes — murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault and burglary — in terms of the victim costs, criminal justice system costs, lost productivity estimates for both the victim and the criminal, and estimates on the public’s resulting willingness to pay to prevent future violence.


Here's my comment:

"Cost or value?

Going by the flawed reasoning in the study, a small town could really benefit from having a serial killer, especially if the killer is a respected member of the community who murders elderly residents and doesn’t get caught.

The productivity of the elderly victim is nil, since they’re not working. Their assets can be sold, which re-circulates $ into the community. Also, any productivity losses for the criminal and criminal justice costs – which would have been a large part of the study’s calculation – only count if the killer is caught.

Also, the killings would bring in money in the form of hotel and restaurant business, media attention, and jobs (police, real estate agents, cleaning companies, funeral parlours, florists, antique dealers, refrigeration suppliers …). Any loss of $ from reduced tourism into the town is conditional on whether there was tourism there in the first place, and if they were particularly gruesome murders there’s the increased tourism & potential marketing for serial killer tours and ghost hunting.

Yes, the above comment is written with tongue placed very firmly in cheek. It’s disgusting to think that a small town might want a serial killer, but it’s equally disgusting for Iowa State University to reduce rape to a dollar figure."

I'm not sure I understand your thesis.

It's not clear what you object to in the original article - what is the 'flawed reasoning' you're critiquing?

They seem to be calculating economic cost of serious crime, which is not a normative claim and appears factually correct.

[blutoski]

The productivity of the elderly victim is nil, since they’re not working.

That's not usually true - most seniors in the US will be earning regular income from an annuity or drawing from savings or investments.



Their assets can be sold, which re-circulates $ into the community.

If people are going to be killed for their assets once they stop being productive, they would not have an incentive to accumulate assets in the first place. The global reduction in incentive to obtain goods or invest would have a massive negative impact on overall wealth. So, this would only work once.




Also, any productivity losses for the criminal and criminal justice costs – which would have been a large part of the study’s calculation – only count if the killer is caught.

Of course, but the point of capture is to deter others, so I think it's reasonable to consider prevention an investment. If others see that there are no consequences there will be an expansion of criminal behavior and higher losses.

That's why the emphasize that the mean homicide conviction is more than one - repeats are the norm.




Also, the killings would bring in money in the form of hotel and restaurant business, media attention, and jobs (police, real estate agents, cleaning companies, funeral parlours, florists, antique dealers, refrigeration suppliers …). Any loss of $ from reduced tourism into the town is conditional on whether there was tourism there in the first place, and if they were particularly gruesome murders there’s the increased tourism & potential marketing for serial killer tours and ghost hunting.

Who knows. I sure wouldn't want to visit somewhere that murderers are able to roam free.




Yes, the above comment is written with tongue placed very firmly in cheek. It’s disgusting to think that a small town might want a serial killer, but it’s equally disgusting for Iowa State University to reduce rape to a dollar figure."

I read the same article, and I don't get the impression they 'reduced rape to a dollar figure' - it looks like they're exploring the economic impact over and above the human tragedy. They even acknowledge this explicitly in their opening sentence and couldn't be clearer: Murder takes an obvious toll on society in terms of the loss of human life, but what does it actually cost each time there’s a murder? (my emphasis)

I think you're attacking a strawperson.

[Travis]

There is a price on each life and there is a price on each of these crimes. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that is a big deal.

[Soapy Sam]

I don't think it is wrong to know how much in financial terms a crime costs society, I think it is a very useful figure to have and whether we like it or not costing the value of a life crops up in many policy decisions. Of course the issue is when only the financial cost is considered and you have a system that only values things by their monetary value.


This is why we need more organised crime. By introducing competition, and economies of scale , organised crime can save the taxpayer millions.

[nzric]

This is why we need more organised crime. By introducing competition, and economies of scale , organised crime can save the taxpayer millions.

Well, that seems to work in Japan , according to some … http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11446716


Blutoski, thanks for the comments. I guess my view of the ‘flawed reasoning’ is:

My example of someone killing old people was gratuitous to make a point – the details may not be 100% airtight but I’m sure we could all come up with a lot of scenarios where a murder would result in a net $ increase for a chosen economy rather than a cost, which was the point of my comment.

I don’t think I’m splitting hairs or focusing on one extreme of the bell curve to make a point. I think the study putting a $ figure on these serious crimes is the equivalent of saying there’s value in having and using a calculation where you have found the average cost of all “Artworks” this year is $4.93 – which includes all family heirlooms, world famous gallery purchases, happy meal figurines as well as every finger painting your kids bring home for you to put on the fridge door. After all they’re all “artworks”.

You mention that the point of capture is to deter others, but I just think it’s not something that can be assessed. For example one gang killing may instigate an average of four retaliation murders (hypothetically), which outweighs any deterrent effect, if any, of capture of the original murderer (and do you measure the future 'earnings' lost of a dead drug dealer, or just legal earnings?). You are also making an assumption that capture deters others – how do you quantify that and where do you get the data from? And how accurate is any data we have about the proportion of murders that result in capture and conviction?

Yes, the study has some research and a chain of reasoning that resulted in them giving an arbitrary dollar figure, but the next step to this rationale is to acknowledge that someone murdering a millionaire “costs” x amount while murdering the millionaire’s grandmother probably “costs” a lesser amount (whatever that amount is) and murdering certain types of people doesn’t “cost”, it actually results in an increase of money.

What value is that calculation, or that line of thinking, actually adding to any conversation?

I don’t think there is any real value, and as I said the base data is a cherry-picked range of assumptions so a decision/assumption/conclusion/policy based in some way on the $ figure would be flawed anyway.