Seeing lots of talk of crime rates going around, so a short-ish thread on crime vs. harm and the violence of crime rates as our indicator of social wellbeing. 1/
-
Show this thread
-
Crime rates measure a very specific set of acts, as reported by the police. Many of those acts are harmful. But they’re often reported & interpreted as representing the level of societal harm/wellbeing––as if high crime rates mean things are bad, and low rates mean good. 2/
2 replies 49 retweets 334 likesShow this thread -
But crime rates, and crime as a legal category, are hyper-individualizing, focusing on a subset of acts that (generally) one human does to another. Crime rates completely erase state harm. 3/
2 replies 61 retweets 345 likesShow this thread -
Some things crime rates don't measure: houselessness, hunger, wage theft, poverty, racism, the drinkability of a city’s water, sexual harassment, sexual violence in most cases, police violence, and countless other forms of harm & state violence. 4/
5 replies 320 retweets 1,002 likesShow this thread -
Really, crime rates are by the state, for the state—they affirm the state as the legitimate arbiter of harm, erase the state’s tracks as source of harm itself, and license the state to carry out harm in the name of ending it (via prisons and policing).
2 replies 179 retweets 556 likesShow this thread -
Breaking the perceived synonymity of "crime" & "harm" is crucial. "Crime" is an individualizing, anti-Black legal invention. Harm is a broad metric that incorporates both the ways in which we hurt each other, and the state as a source of violence, instability, pain, and death 6/
6 replies 126 retweets 500 likesShow this thread
extraordinary
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.