First, I had to figure out how many murderers there are. From the Bureau of Justice statistics page, I was able to get the number of murders since 1976. I was also able to find the percentage of homicides cleared by arrest. From these two pieces of information I can figure out how many unsolved murders there are since 1976 - about 160,000.
Now, number of murders is not the same as number of murderers. Some murderers are responsible for multiple deaths (Jeffrey Dahmer - 16, George W. Bush - >100,000). But since the bureau of justice statistics claim that there are fewer homicides with multiple victims than there are homicides with multiple offenders, I think it is reasonable to assume one uncaptured murderer for every unsolved murder. So, that leaves us with 160,000. (Note: I may be thinking of that statistic wrong - it is possible that the BoJ considers a homicide with multiple victims one in which several people are killed at once, like a terrorist explosion, as opposed to a serial killer, who commits multiple homicides with one victim each time. In addition, I'm not really sure what it means for a homicide to have multiple offenders. It's possible that many cases involve more than one person, but only one of those people does the actual killing, and the other is charged with some "conspiracy to commit murder" type crime. Anyways, I'm only interested in people who have actually killed.)
Now that we have an (admittedly rough) estimate of the number of killers on the loose, we need to find out the probability that I know one of them. Given a U.S. population of around 272 million (2002 estimate), and 160,000 uncaught murderers, then the odds that any particular US citizen is a killer on the loose are quite low at 0.000591499868387572.
The easiest way to do the desired calculation is to figure out the probability that none of your acquaintences are killers, and then subtract that value from one to figure out the probability that one or more of your acquaintences are murderers. To that end, the probability that someone isn't a killer is 0.999408500131612. But the odds that neither of two people you know are killers is (0.999408500131612 * 0.999408500131612 = 0.998817350135319). Slightly lower now, isn't it? For each person you know, you multiply this new number by the odds that the new person isn't a killer, so that the number we want is (1 - (0.999408500131612^N)), where "^" is "to the power" and N is the number of people you know. Now the important question: how many people do you know? If you only know 50 people, there is only a 3% chance that you know a killer. But you probably know many more than that, you charismatic devil, you. If you know 500 people, then there is about a 25% chance that you know a murderer. And to get to better than even odds (> 50%) of knowing a killer, your social circle would need to include 1172 people. And if you know 5000 people, then it is a virtual certainty (94%) that you know a killer. 5000 certainly seems like a lot, but remember, Wilt Chamberlain claims he had sex with 20,000 women! According to my numbers, there were probably a few murderers just in the group of people that Wilt the Stilt "knew" in the biblical sense.
Now, I know that there are a lot of rough edges in this analysis, but if you can think of any good reasons why this is complete bullshit, please let me know in the comments section.
Here is my spreadsheet file in Excel and Gnumeric
file formats.
Posted by mill1991 at May 26, 2005 10:40 AM
| TrackBack
Re: Wilt Chamberlain.
I think it's safe to claim that most murderers are male. This means taht Wilt Chamberlain is safer than you would think. Now, for other people this would make the situation worse. Even if you know an equal amount of people of each gender, you are MORE likely to know a murderer than if you don't consider the gender differences.
On the other hand it's possible that women get away with murder more often...
Posted by: Alex at May 26, 2005 6:21 PMWhile re-reading my comment, I thought of another statistic that would be interesting to investigate. What is the percentage of people you know that are not nerds? I think only a trace amount.
Posted by: Alex at May 26, 2005 6:27 PM"safe to claim that most murderers are male"?? then why do wives consistently outlast their husbands' life expectancy after years of subtle torture?
Posted by: David Boudreau at June 6, 2005 2:56 AMBravo, DB. Bravo!
Bravo, as well, to you, you unflappable bastard - great post.
Posted by: nathan at June 8, 2005 10:15 AMThank you. Now, I'd like to get back to the old posting about Courtroom sketch artists and their obstruction of justice behavior. I would like to understand how this ridiculous thing became not only allowed but so commonplace in our halls of justice.
Posted by: David Boudreau at June 10, 2005 12:37 AM