In light of the little flurry of comments here on whether the murder of Anna Lindh proves anything about Swedish society, I decided to dig up some facts. While I am usually of the opinion that facts get in the way of a good debate, I suspected that in this case looking up some statistics might just lead to some enlightenment.

Specifically, I’ve been wanting to compare two indicators for Sweden and the US: incarceration rates and murder rates. America’s numbers are conveniently pored over in the current edition of The New York Review of Books, but I got a whiff of border-line data massaging going on in that article. Still, an interesting read, if one to lean into.

I’ve found a British Home Office document [PDF] that serves my purpose. It lists both indicators for a whole range of interesting countries. All I did was put the two series on perpendicular axes and voila, my scatter chartData is for the year 2000.:

Now, what does this chart tell us? Well, obviously that the US has both a higher incarceration rate and a higher murder rate. But we expected that. Lets look instead at the policy options available to each country’s government:

The orange lines represent the trade-off each country can expect between incarceration rates and murder rates. For example, if the US were to let half its prisoners go, it might have a homicide rate of 10 per 100,000 people per year, or nearly doubleThese are just ballpark figures, of course.. Now, let’s assume that both countries are happy with their spot on their respective policy lines P’ and P”. If you now look at the slopes of the lines drawn from the origin to each country’s position, you can clearly see Sweden is willing to tolerate more murders per prisoner than the US.

What if we implemented American policy preferences for crime fighting on Sweden’s level of crime? That would bring Sweden to point A on the chart. Incarceration rates would rise from the current 64 per 100,000 people to about 160. The murder rate would drop from the current 2.06 per 100,000 people per year to around 1.5. For a population of 9 million, that would mean forty-five extra people would be alive each year, but 9000 more people would be in jail.

If Swedish preferences for crime fighting were implemented in the US, we’d be at point B. US incarceration rates would drop from the current 685 (in 2000) to around 320, and the murder rate would rise from 5.87 per 100k to around 10. For a population of 290 million, it would mean 12,000 more people die each year, though there would be 1 million fewer prisoners.

There is of course another possibility: That people’s preferences are fundamentally the same, but that they are expressed differently depending on the crime rate. As the crime rate rises, people’s attitudes quickly harden, and the government’s stance on crime toughensOther interesting factoids from the report; Sweden’s homicide rate is a little higher than the EU average of 1.70 per 100k. Stockholm’s homicide rate, at 2.97 per 100k, is a little higher than the EU city average of 2.48. New York City’s homicide rate is 8.77. Pretoria wins hands-down with 41.1:

This would mean that Sweden and the US both have crime policies that are well suited for their environment. Swedes moving to the US do, over time, become tougher on crime, while Americans moving to Sweden tend to soften up. This approach lets both the Swedes and the Americans off the hook when it comes to toughness on crime. And it would let Sweden’s crime policy off the hook for Anna Lindh’s murder. But it does not explain why the US has much higher homicide levels in the first place.

This whole self-imposed Swedish press censorship phenomenon I’ve come across this past week doesn’t cease to amaze me. I’m not done yet with the debate on the naming/not naming of Anna Lindh murder suspect Per-Olof Svensson (whose name absolutely everybody knew by last call in Stockholm Friday night) but first, thisI’m excerpting because Reuters stories don’t last forever.:

Oprah chastised for pro-war bias
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) – Sweden’s broadcasting watchdog says it is censuring an Oprah Winfrey talk show for showing bias towards a U.S. military attack on Iraq.
 
The censure means Swedish television network TV4, which broadcast the show in February, must publish the decision but there are no legal or financial penalties, Annelie Ulfhielm, an official of Sweden’s Broadcasting Commission, told Reuters.
 
“Different views were expressed, but all longer remarks gave voice to the opinion that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States and should be the target of attack,” Sweden’s Broadcasting Commission said on WednesdayTypical: Every time I stop reading Andrew Sullivan because he is so insufferable, he comes up with a worthy observation, so I missed this link when he posted it on Wednesday. Still, the Swedish press seems not to have picked up on it in the meantime..

I’m practically sputtering (metaphorically) as I write this. American talk shows broadcast in Sweden have to be “fair” in terms of time allotted to opposing viewpoints? How can anyone possibly care what goes on in an Oprah show? Next week: Jerry Springer sides too much with deadbeat dads who sleep with their daughters! David Letterman’s jokes are hurtful to Austro-Californians! FoxNews’s Bill O’Reilly just won’t shut up!

Does the broadcasting commission think that Swedes are too stupid to resist a one-sided argument? It’s the only explanation that I can come up with. How perfectly condescending.

I want to revisit my earlier reasons why not publishing Per-Olof Svensson’s name is hypocriticalUpdate 2003/9/24: Svensson is released, and no longer under suspicion for Anna Lindh’s murder. A new suspect is arrested.. It seems to me that Aftonbladet and others have completely perverted the newsworthiness test, perhaps precisely because there is a taboo placed on publishing his name and picture. If I were an editor of a non-sensationalist broadsheet, I would publish his name, his picture, his alleged nazi links, and his history of mental illness, all on the grounds of newsworthiness. I would not publicize his sexual preference, his conspicuous consumption, testimonials by various ex-girlfriends and boyfriends, and the important news that supermodel Emma Sjöberg went to school with him. Yet that is what the Swedish press has been writing about Svensson in lurid detail, though the papers instead call him “the 35-year old.”

As long as you know that these sensationalist stories are about that suspect, it doesn’t matter what you call him; the damage is being done. If Swedish media were following their code of ethics according to the spirit of the law rather than the letter, we’d see far fewer of those stories in print, and perhaps a basic fact or two, like his name.

The Guardian has named the suspect held for the murder of Anna Lindh. It’s a very typical Swedish name. Other wire services are also reporting the name. In fact, some Swedish government agencies who carry these wire services have now also unwittingly named the suspectUpdate 2003/9/24: Svensson is released, and no longer under suspicion for Anna Lindh’s murder. A new suspect is arrested..

Everybody who works in Swedish media knows the name, and trades it like the hot gossip it is, but nobody here publishes or broadcasts it. This is as hypocritical as it is futile; human nature abhors an information vacuum, so Swedes will turn to foreign media to get the information they need.

Aftonbladet and others have taken this ridiculousness to its logical conclusion, printing full-page blurs that could be a snapshot of just about anyone. The only message being rubbed into readers’ faces is “we know who he is and we are not telling you.”

Can Swedish media please step into the 21st century? There is no point in being ethical if you are irrelevant. In any case, you are not being unethical if you publish names of suspects. They are innocent until proven guilty, sure, but still suspect and hence newsworthy. I don’t understand how the police are expecting to get tips from the public if they do not want to tell us who the tips are supposed to be about.

Here is an interesting take on the the Swedish referendum results I haven’t seen elsewhere:

Undecideds routed in Swedish EMU referendum

Although fully one third of ballots made available at polling stations had the word "blank" printed on them, voters shunned these in droves, instead stuffing either the "yes" or "no" ballots into their voting envelopes.
 
"See if I care," said Apatipartiet (ap) leader Stig Slöströmming, who maintained a a defiantly indifferent stance in the wake of the defeat. "If Swedes want to hold clear views about politics, they're welcome to them. Just leave us out of the EMU debate."
 
But when pressed to explain the collapse of the apathist vote in the final few weeks before the referendum, Slöströmming admitted mistakes were made. "We didn't run a good campaign. Or any campaign at all, for that matter."
 
Analysts tonight were pinning some of the blame on a party leadership divided between the don't knows and the don't cares. Asked which faction Slöströmming belonged to, he replied only, "Don't know, don't care."
 
But what is clear from the result tonight is that many of the party rank and file only pretended not to care, when in fact they were steadily forming opinions which they had no qualms about voicing today.
 
The Swedish result is sure to boost the opinionated across Europe. Already tonight Welsh Defeatist Party leader Eurof Uppington came out in favor of opinions, though he assured his supporters he would only choose unelectable ones.

With a tip of the hat to the imicable imitable The Onion.

The no side won by a wider margin than expected — 56.2% to 41.8% with 2.1% blank — especially after polls in the last few days showed a dramatic surge for the yes side. It’s clear now that those polled did not want to voice disagreement with Lindh’s views so soon after her murder, but that Swedes ended voting with their pocketbooks, as voters everywhere always doMalmö, Stockholm and a few towns along the Finnish border has yes majorities, as they should, being the communties most exposed to euro economies..

I’m convinced no is the best choice for Sweden at the moment. Prime Minister Göran Persson admitted as much when he said, in the final weeks of canvassing, that should the vote be yes, he would only bring Sweden into EMU when EU finances are in better shape and Sweden’s economy is better aligned with those of euroland.

But where Persson said “when,” I would have said “if.” Had I voted yes, I do not think Persson would really have interpreted my vote as an economically skeptical stance towards an ever-larger EMU. Hence my vote had to be no; this way I retain the ability to choose myself whether the case for joining ever becomes compelling.

Will Sweden lose influence in Europe, as the yes side warned? I think the opposite might well be true, especially given the resounding nature of the result. Watch Sweden influence the debate now, as European leaders ponder why their euro projects do not pass muster in a nation full of conscientious, informed, socially committed people. (This, at least, is the image Sweden enjoys abroad, even if Swedes themselves are often more self-critical.)

I take it back, my approving mention in the preceding post of The Wall Street Journal’s “gracious” op-ed piece lauding Anna Lindh as “Sweden’s conscientious, stylish and intelligent foreign minister.” It turns out that article appeared only in the European editions of the WSJ. If you want to know what the WSJ pitched at its core domestic market, you need to read what their columnist James Taranto posted to the WSJ editorial blog The Best of the Web Today last night:

Terror Attack Kills Terror Apologist
Remember Anna Lindh? She was the Swedish foreign minister dubbed the “Scandinavian Taliban” for her terrorist apologetics. She’s shown up occasionally in this column, first in January 2002 for her quote: “I think this discussion about equating [Yasser] Arafat with terrorists is both inappropriate and stupid. It is a very dangerous policy.”
 
Then, in November, she denounced America for killing six al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen: “If the U.S.A. is behind this with Yemen’s consent, it is nevertheless a summary execution that violates human rights,” she said. “Even terrorists must be treated according to international law. Otherwise, any country can start executing those whom they consider terrorists.”
 
Lindh, 46, died this morning. In a horrific irony, she herself may have been the victim of a terrorist attack: “She was knifed in an upscale Stockholm department store Wednesday by an unknown assailant,” reports the AP, which in another dispatch describes her as “an outspoken human rights advocate.” Lindh’s tragic death is proof, as if any were needed, that “understanding” the enemies of civilization will not stop them from killing you if they get a chance.

Trust James Taranto to once again blow past all bounds of decency in writing a sneering, triumphalist take on the Lindh murder. I’ve caught him doing such stuff before. If Lindh’s other ideological sparring partners — such as The Jerusalem Post, Little Green Footballs, Andrew Sullivan and Instapundit — stayed quiet on Lindh’s murder, refusing to speak ill of the dead, or perhaps realizing that there simply is no “I-told-you-so” moral to this tragic story, what compels Taranto to verge on saying that she got what she deserved?

I suspect it’s because Taranto suffers from some sort of psychological imbalace, but maybe that’s letting him off too lightly. He’s certainly known as a loose canon in NYC media circles. Even so, there are plenty of nutcases at the fringes of the blogosphere; the question is, what’s this one doing among the most esteemed opinion leaders of American conservative thought? Do Paul Gigot and Bob Bartley approve of this? Do they know this is being written under the Wall Street Journal banner? Or are they under the impression that because these rants only appear online, they carry less weight? I think they know very well what they’re doing: Putting forward an acceptable face as a newspaper of record by day, but simultaneously catering to a core constituency of right-wing demagogues in the online underworld. Let’s face it: Best of the Web Todayis a very popular blog, and it gives the WSJ street cred.

What are we now supposed to believe is the view of the WSJ editorial board? That Anna Lindh was a true democrat who got what she deserved? A Scandinavian Taliban who was conscientious and intelligent? For clarity’s sake, Paul, can you please either fire your European editorial writers or James Taranto? And if it’s not the latter who goes, surely you’d understand if the Swedish government now ostracizes Wall Street Journal reporters? Ah, but of course, the Swedes are decent people, they would never do such a thing.

The New York Times obit of Anna Lindh is a straightforward affair, with nothing much we didn’t already know; more surprising perhaps is a gracious op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal. An excerpt (link is valid for a week):

Of course, she also believed in detente with North Korea and attacked post-Sept. 11 America as a “Lone Ranger” in world affairs, positions that we didn’t admire. But we always appreciated the spirit of openness that she and her country brought to the European debate. Her murder strikes a blow to democracy as well as the Swedish way of political life.

Though the viewpoints of Anna Lindh and the WSJ editorial board could not be more divergent on many issues, there is no denying that she charmed many Americans, not least Colin Powell, with her straighforward demeanor and conscientious nature.

In the UK, The Guardian’s obit is a much better read than the NYT, but that is perhaps because this literary form is taken so much more seriously by the English (and, yes, they had 5 more hours to prepare till press time). We’ll have to wait until next week for the Economist‘s take.

At 5pm CEST today, there will be a “march” at Sergels Torg in memory of Lindh. Prime Minister Persson will talk. I think I am going to take a look.