Posted on 09/04/2013 6:47:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This weekend, the New York Times' Nick Madigan called Florida a "hothouse of corruption," reporting the Sunshine State saw the greatest number of people convicted of public corruption between 2000 and 2010.
That's technically true. But it's not the full story.
To get a true sense of the most corrupt state, we need to know how many convictions there have been on a population basis.
So we went back to Justice Department data cited by Madigan, to see which states saw the greatest number of convictions per 100,000 (Madigan actually appears to cite slightly outdated data; the latest covers the period between 2002 and 2011).
No. 1?
Louisiana, with nearly 9 convictions per 100,000 people.
The Dakotas are runners up.
The states with the fewest conviction rates were South Carolina, Oregon, Washington, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Utah, each with no more than 1.3 convictions per 100,000.
And Florida? Only the 20th-most corrupt, with 3.28 convictions per 100,000 — basically, just a bit above average.
Here's the full chart:
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Stupid metric. I could make a case that more convictions implies less corruption, because crooks are actually punished.
If the corruption extends to the DAs and the police, the arrest numbers are worthless.
This data assumes that convictions is an accurate basis for measurement. Truly corrupt states will not convict their own.
With a legislature that meets every-other-year and relatively light regulation in the state, I guess that's corruption I can live with.
If you look what happened in the cases of Terry McCauliffe, Charles Rangel and Jon Corzine, just to name a few, you might want to reconsider using a conviction as the key for saying which are the most corrupt. Whether they bribed or used political connections to get off the hook, only Rangel was convicted, if you will, and that involved nothing more than a slap on the wrist. He is still out there trying to be a civil rights “moral compass”, for goodness sakes! Like Al Sharpton, the media still go to him to get quotes on the struggle against the “Man”, when for all practical matters, Rangel the landlord is the Man.
In fact, you could argue that the more convictions obtained, the greater the anti-corruption forces are in that state.
I guess this depends on who you leave out. If Illegal aliens were convicted and counted the states boarding the south would be highest. Colorado would be much higher if political violations were counted.
Absurd. If pinkie is not at the top, there’s no use to this.
Ack. Illinois, not pinkie!
My first thought was Hawaii, but I’ll go with Louisiana. Any state with a considerable population on “Indian” land should be next.
RE: Absurd. If pinkie is not at the top, there’s no use to this.
Who or what on earth is pinkie?
Bad metric. In a truly corrupt state, there aren't any convictions for corruption. It's part of the normal way of doing business.
Having written Harry Reid’s only biography, I guarantee Nevada has it’s share of corruption hidden in plain view.
http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php
A friend of Thumbkin. All you have to do is ask where he is and he'll tell you.
I would think that the states with the highest conviction rates were the least corrupt..............
Arrests just mean the crooks pay a consequence for their actions and that there are people in government who work to prevent corruption.
A better measure of corruption would be total State government spending divided by total private sector jobs or total private sector payroll.
Unnecessary government spending ends up in the hands of bad people. Follow the money.
I also disagree with the “per-capita” notion. New Hampshire has an enormous legislature and a tiny population. California has an enormous population, and a fairly small legislature. One bad legislator in New Hampshire, by this metric, would make NH look as bad as if half of California’s legislature went to prison.
I guess the state is less corrupt if no one knows about the corruption. Which is usually the case.
I had strong ties to North Dakota, 1964-1988. The tolerance for corruption was very low. The courts were not congested. People actually like to get jury duty. I was called twice, excused twice and paid $50 each time.
Here in Pennsylvania, jury duty will barely cover your parking fee and a granola bar for lunch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.