Measurement and Other Errors in County-Level UCR Data: A Reply to Lott and Whitley
Lott and Whitley note that our analyses of the errors in the county-level UCR data used in More Guns, Less Crime (J. R. Lott, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1998, 2000) ignore the fact that all data have measurement error, that the largest errors were in counties with low populations, and tha...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Otros Autores: | |
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
2003
|
| En: |
Journal of quantitative criminology
Año: 2003, Volumen: 19, Número: 2, Páginas: 199-206 |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Palabras clave: |
| Sumario: | Lott and Whitley note that our analyses of the errors in the county-level UCR data used in More Guns, Less Crime (J. R. Lott, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1998, 2000) ignore the fact that all data have measurement error, that the largest errors were in counties with low populations, and that population-weighted regressions were used. We agree that this mitigates some of the effects of the errors, but does not take them fully into account. We also note that this is but one of the problems associated with the analysis. We therefore find no reason to alter our original conclusion, that in their current condition, county-level UCR crime statistics cannot be used for evaluating the effects of changes in policy. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1573-7799 |
| DOI: | 10.1023/A:1023006321454 |