Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct?

Icebreak

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
4,998
Location
by the river
I ran across this site. bestplaces.net

Do these comparisons seem correct?

I was a little surprised to see that where I live now had many more violent crimes per 100,000 people than NY,NY. There's only about 200,000 people in this city compared to almost 8,000,000 in NYC. Then comparing where I live to LA, it was slightly less violent than LA per 100,000 people.

These statistics supposedly came from the FBI for 2001.

Do these comparisons seem correct when you dial in your city or closest city and compare it to other cities?
 

LukeK

Enlightened
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
529
Location
TX
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

The stats on NYC do seem rather low for a city like that, but we do have to take into account the job that former Mayor Giuliani did. He cleaned up the city incredibly well, dramatically reducing crime, organized and otherwise.
 

raggie33

*the raggedier*
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
13,453
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

i live near atl and its bad there.id say worst in country.watching the local news scares me
 

KC2IXE

Flashaholic*
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Messages
2,237
Location
New York City
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

Crime here in the Big Apple IS way down, but actually up a tick in the last year

I'm the area I live in NYC, the Murder rate has been fluctuating between 0 and 1 to 2, depending, fo about 7 years. The only crime problems in this part is that we recently have had a rash of burglaries - They think they have some clues on the perps - Black Mini Pickup (descriped either as a Toyoda or an S-10) with a roof rack and ladders, 2 perps, male, hispanic
 

Negeltu

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
724
Location
Oregon, USA
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

I heard atlanta is pretty bad as far as murder rate goes.

Also, I had a friend visit his family in Arkansas and he ended up getting person napped by a gang and they shot him up with a bunch of drugs and beat the hell out of him and left him on a street corner. He was all messed up from the drugs and the cops picked him up and locked him in jail. After a while they realized something was wrong with him cuz his toes were turning black and he was talking out of his head. They sent him to the hospital and had to take his toes cuz they got frostbite... He had internal injuries too... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif He's still in therapy today...
 

Stu

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jul 13, 2003
Messages
87
Location
s, p, d & f orbitals.. somewhere in the Rockies
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

I think it is interesting that I don't see Jackson, Mississippi listed on the "best places" crime comparison feature you can do to compare two cities/states. I used to live there, and I perceived crime to be really bad 25 years ago. The local newspaper there recently indicated that the Jackson metropolitan area was the 4th most dangerous area in the U.S. for violent crime. I'm not surprised. North Little Rock (Arkansas) was something like 1st or 2nd for violent crime (per 100,000 people).
 

Jack_Crow

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
417
Location
West Palm Beach FLA (for a while anyway)
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

All,
When Im home in Northern Virginia there are two things you see every day on the local news.

Major Crime in Maryland and DC.
much less crime in Virginia.

CCW laws make a difference. Criminals don't like citizens that can kill them. They prefer to go to softer dis armed places.

That's my poor attitude.
Hope all is well
Jack Crow in Iraq
 

Negeltu

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
724
Location
Oregon, USA
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

I lived in Northern VA most of my life... and I have to agree with your observations.
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

I promised myself that I was not going to turn this into a political thread---So, without further comment, other than I tried to see if it is an urban legend (does not seem to be) and I am not connection cause and effect... Blue vs Red counties murder rate:

[ QUOTE ]
Average Murder rate per 100,000 residents:
NOTE: These numbers do appear to be invalid--see post below. [edited: BB]
in counties won by Bush: 2.1
in counties won by Gore: 13.2

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been passed around the web a bunch, and I have even seen versions with 2.1 accidentally typed as 0.1--For what it is worth.

-Bill
 

Icebreak

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
4,998
Location
by the river
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

Negeltu -

Sad to here about your friend. Was he the guy that came to see his parents then when visiting some friends got ambushed by local gang members and dragged away? ...maybe 2 or 3 years ago?

Stu -

I think some cities don't report.

Jack Crow -

We have CCW here too and I tote.

Stats for Little Rock and Richmond VA were close. Richmond VA had almost twice the murders though.

Again, I wonder if these stats are correct.

Bill -

Interesting stats. I'm sure just the correctness of these statistics will not be the only thing discussed. I'm just a little surprised by them.

Guess I missed the news reports about my area. It just doesn't seem dangerous in my area. I always carry a 3" Odysessy in the day and a semi-auto weapon of one kind or the other at night.
 

03lab

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
423
Location
berlin.de
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

Does that mean, that voters in counties with a high murder rate had more faith in Gore to take care of crime or are you saying that the murder rate dropped in the counties won by Bush because ... they elected Bush?

BTW, doesn't Washington DC have one of the highest murder rates?

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

Found a better source for the information and it appears that the original numbers posted are wrong. The corrected ones from snoops.com:
[ QUOTE ]
Year 2000 murders per 100,000 residents by Gore/Bush Counties:

Gore: 6.5
Bush: 4.1

[/ QUOTE ]

As this information appears to be better sourced, I will make a note in the original post that updated numbers are available here...

-Bill

PS: For what appears to be the best overall source of crime/justice information in the US--try this site:

US Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics

They have written reports (HTML and PDF) plus you can download data for your own questions. Most of the data is for the periods of 1973 to 2000.

There is one long term homicide trend chart with data starting in 1950.

It is interesting to see that much of the increase in murders started in the mid 1960's and peaked in the early to mid 1990's for the US. And, by 2000, large cities have roughly the same major crime rates as the rest of the country (on average). And overall crime rates seeming to be at a 20+ year low.

Perhaps, if people are interested, we could post this link on its own thread for discussions of cause and effect--as it probably does not fit well in this thread.

-Bill
 

MichiganMan

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 31, 2002
Messages
589
Location
Saginaw, MI, USA
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

[ QUOTE ]
And overall crime rates seeming to be at a 20+ year low.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not too surprising IMO when you take into consideration that aging of the baby boomer population. Not too say that the drug-experimenting-free-lovin-hippies-turned-sell-out-yuppies /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif were more crime prone. Its just that their higher population naturally supported a higher crime rate, and as they've passed out of the years when people generally commit crimes (18 to ~40) crime has naturally gone down as subsequent smaller generations lacked the numbers to support the same rate.
 

Al_Havemann

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 11, 2002
Messages
302
Location
New York City
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

FWIW

Our case load of violent and drug arrest have steadily declined for the last 5 years. More recently, our 20 month stats show a 28% decline, that's overall not just violent.

While I don't think crime is going out of style any time soon, these numbers ARE very significant, especially considering that this trend is true across the entire United States as evidenced by similar statistics in our 110 offices in every state and major city.

This trend is puzzling very since the jobless rate has increased and one would have thought that would lead to increased, crime, but it doesn't seem so. Perhaps the increasing base age of the male population has something to do with it. I don't think anyone really knows the answer but it's a trend well worth following.

Al
 

Bravo25

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
1,129
Location
Kansas, USA
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

[ QUOTE ]
MichiganMan said:
[ QUOTE ]
And overall crime rates seeming to be at a 20+ year low.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not too surprising IMO when you take into consideration that aging of the baby boomer population. Not too say that the drug-experimenting-free-lovin-hippies-turned-sell-out-yuppies /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif were more crime prone. Its just that their higher population naturally supported a higher crime rate, and as they've passed out of the years when people generally commit crimes (18 to ~40) crime has naturally gone down as subsequent smaller generations lacked the numbers to support the same rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I don't buy this one. You are talking about a time when more "hippies" were arrested per capita than any other demographic group. They were targeted, and aressted, because of the anti-establishment mentality. Drug arrest was one prevailing avenue to accomplish this. Plain outright trumped up charges was another.
 

BlindTiger

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Aug 27, 2003
Messages
143
Location
NY State
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

The latest statistics say crime is down in NYC but somehow that's not the feeling one gets when reading the NY Post.
I don't know how to respond when someone says NYC is safer than some other city because I'm still aware crime can happen to me.
Did John Lott's book bring up stats from CCW states vs. non?
I hear Atlanta and DC are 2 places that one should not be out at night. I was waiting for a bus change at the DC bus station and it was pretty sketchy there at 4 am.
 

Icebreak

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
4,998
Location
by the river
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

BB -

Your BJS link is very interesting.

Al Havemann -

I would have to agree that a 28 % overall drop is a significant trend and a good trend. I'm sure your associates have something to do with it. Good job.
 

pedalinbob

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 7, 2002
Messages
2,281
Location
Michigan
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

look at Detroit...which i am very close to...

depressing.

Bob
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

Poverty does not cause crime... Per www.johnlocke.org

[ QUOTE ]
Incarceration alone will not solve North Carolina's crime crisis. We must also focus on preventing crime by addressing the conditions that give rise to it. That does not mean increasing government spending on jobs programs or social programs. There is no historical relationship between crime rates and either poverty, joblessness, or government social spending. Crime rates during the Great Depression were much lower than they are today. The real cause of crime is not a poverty of resources but a poverty of values. Research has clearly documented a relationship between out-of-wedlock births and the likelihood that those children will grow up to be criminals. That means that welfare reform and other measures to reduce government dependency and illegitimacy are irreplaceable elements of a successful crime prevention strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, for a slightly contrary view to Locke there is Heritige Foundation's Crime and the Economy: What Connection?

[ QUOTE ]
But on closer inspection, Grogger's argument falls apart. Crime rates fell in nearly all categories between 1982 and 1984, even though Grogger's own numbers show that wages fell for low-income workers during the same period. Likewise, Grogger's data show that wages rose for low-income workers between 1988 and 1990, despite being a period of higher crime rates.

...

So if the economy doesn't explain it, why have crime rates fallen so sharply in recent years? One can't say for sure, but the smart money is on three key factors. For one, America's prison capacity has roughly quadrupled since the mid-1970s and, starting in the early 1980s, the punishment a criminal could expect for a crime began to rise in most states after a 30-year decline. In short, many more crooks are behind bars.

Second, we have more police officers – and, for the most part, they're doing a better job. Of course, research shows that it is not the number of police on the street, but rather how they are managed and deployed that makes the biggest difference in controlling crime. And thanks to new ideas about cracking down on disorder, holding police commanders accountable, training officers and working with community groups, the police have become a lot smarter in fighting crime.

Third, the number of males aged 16 to 24 – the group that commits about half of all crime – declined a bit in the early 1990s.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an interesting site. They have a bunch of information--Here is US Homicide Rates back to 1900.. Huge, steady run-up in rates from 1903 (1 per 100,000) to 1933 (near 10 per 100,000). Then a drop to 1950-1965 (~4.5 per 100,000). Up again to 1981 and 1993 (10.5 per 100,000) and straight downward trend to 2000 (6 per 100,000).

I read in other places that using the Homicide Rates/Data as an analogy for overall crime data as homicides are reported/investigated without much influence wrt politics--and usually have the highest rate of solution (so perpetrators are well known).

John Lott will use "More Guns, Less Crime" argument. Looking for major changes in homicide rates (see 1900-2000 link above), Start of National Guard (regulating the militia--1902 1/100k). Prohibition (starting Prohibition 1919--~5/100k, ending 1933 10/100k) seems to be a big factor, and the war on drugs/war on poverty seemed to be another up-tick (1963 LBJ war on poverty 5/100k==Nixon's war on drugs/gun control act of 1968 gave 1969, 7.5/100k) through to a peak of 1981 (end of Carter 10.5/100k). Drop during Reagan (to 8.5/100k) and back up during Bush I (1992 10.5/100k) and a steady drop under Clinton (2000 rate of ~6.3/100k).

Without detailed multi-variable analysis (see John Lott), it sure looks like when the Federal Government increases law (National Guard/Prohibition) homicides go up by a factor of 10 or war on poverty/drugs/guns by a factor of 2.

While, reduction in government laws/programs such as end of prohibition coincide with homicide rates falling by 1/2... I am at a loss of what to attribute the falls during Reagan/Clinton years... The conservative in me wants to credit welfare reform and the availability of CCW in more and more states (and, unfortunately, the increase in jail cells).

The scared conservative in me worries that the welfare state (FDR's 1933 Great Society and massive increases in social spending from 1962-2000, a factor of >10x--per 2004 Whitehouse budget proposal listed in other thread--in constant dollars) perhaps should not be ignored. Although, the entire change in Homicide rates from 1962 to 2000 seem to be independent of government poverty/Social Security spending (i.e., spending is flat out going up, but homicide rates rise and fall during same period).

Locking up the criminals (AKA the 3 Strikes Law--started in California), longer prison terms and such, can provide short term/expensive help for the crime problem--after the criminals have already been trained and are out on the streets.

But, I would also like to look at what it takes to prevent criminals in the first place. My personal beliefs are that we must start with family values (including education and two parent families--and religion probably does not hurt either--although, I am a generic God kind of guy--not a church going one--for better or worse).

And I worry government programs, in general, are causing more problems then they fix. Welfare destroys families, cash aid--ala San Francisco--attracts criminals, 3 strikes laws drives them somewhere else, Federal/State programs remove local control and blur accountability, lots of "free" cash create new groups of people/lobbies that want their cut--from more government bureaucrats to people that want grants to those that receive the aid/cash. New laws that make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people (such as precursor laws from another thread would be a start).

Well, I will stop here for now. Your thoughts?

-Bill
 

raggie33

*the raggedier*
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
13,453
Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct

ive lived in clevland oh miami fl atl by far is the worst,one time on the way fromparents i was low on gas. puklled of interstate .i was very afraid reminded me of some cgharles bronson movie
 
Top