Woops, perhaps something could be added to the analysis...
Regarding the post by John Blackmon...
Nice researching, as well as explanation.
One thing that seems to be missing, though, is the marginal change in residency for criminals as compared to changes in crime in each area over time. Ie, whether the enforcement in areas from which they moved was a reason for their move and how that move affected the rates of crime in the areas to which they moved (yes, I was an economics major... 8-))
For example, methods in areas where he is not responsible (eg the city proper of Phoenix) may have driven folks to areas where the perceived success rate in crime (ie how easy it is perceived to get away with something) is higher (eg county areas, which typically have fewer police officers per geographic measure, in this case miles). In a nutshell, officers in metro areas like Phoenix (or San Diego, Manchester, Paris or Prague) typically have smaller areas to police per officer and better resources than those in outlying areas. This effect can be seen in the Inland Empire (aka 'Endless Empire) of southern California, specifically San Bernadino county. Look on a map to see how large this area really is, it's larger than some eastern states and quite sparsely populated. Lots of problems away from the population centers...
Please, everyone, note that I am not trying to take a side, here - instead, I am trying to point out that the analysis, while thorough, seems to be missing one component which may - or may not - change the conclusion of the analysis. To me, examining the situation without this information leaves a bit too much room for subjective interpretation.
Again, nice analysis, but I think it would be more complete with the inclusion of what is discussed above.
Go, El reg!!! 8-)
TF
southern California
Biting the hand that feeds IT
