Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

No, per square mile is meaningless.

Crime per square mile will be higher anywhere where people live in high rise buildings instead of suburbs.

So what? Is it worse that a robbery took place 15 floors below you rather than five blocks away? Because I don't see the difference at all.

If you're worried about personal safety, literally the only important denominator is per capita. That's the likelihood of something happening to you.

Per square mile has no relevance to personal safety. And if high population density is a factor in crime levels rising, that's already reflected in per-capita stats.




Absolutely it is worse, as the criminal has access to your building and you may meet them more easily in elevators and common areas.


Well that likelihood is measured as crime per capita, of course.

Conditional on someone breaking in, you are much safer in an apartment building. If you live in a single family house and someone breaks in, he or she will probably rob you. If you live in a 100 unit apartment building and someone breaks in, he or she will rob either your unit, or or one of the 99 others. For it to be yours, you need to be unlucky that day, even after the break-in.


No, because the crime rate is the same so it doesn't matter by definition.

But also, think about -- in the suburbs the criminal can just walk into your front yard. There's no difference between someone at the door to your apartment or the door to your house. (Heck, houses can be easier to break into because they have more doors to try out of view, windows that can be smashed, etc.)

And yes you can run into a criminal in an elevator. You can also run into them on a sidewalk, or get carjacked while stopped at a traffic light or to park.

But at the end of the day there's no difference. Crime per capita is crime per capita.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: