8 ms·

Homicide rates are the key number to track. Other crime statistics have big reporting problems. Police can easily not report a crime (especially when there is p

Homicide rates are the key number to track. Other crime statistics have big reporting problems. Police can easily not report a crime (especially when there is pressure to make the stats look good), people stop calling police if they think the police won't do anything, etc. But it is very hard to hide a body. And homicide rates have risen substantially in the last two years (up 10.4% in 2015, and projected for 13.1% this year). These are the biggest increases in a generation. http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/09/spin-this-biggest-murder-increase-in-45.html http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/09/spin-this-biggest-murder... http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/11/homicide-is-up-and-its-not-trumps-fault.html http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/11/homicide-is-up-and-its-n... I'm not sure if the de-incarceration is responsible for the rise in crime. From my following, it seems like the police backing off in response to protests, riots, and consent decrees has a bigger impact. And I'm not a fan of prison -- there are better ways to deter crime and to keep violent criminals away from normal people. But I do notice that most times when I see a murder in the news, and the suspect has been apprehended, the suspect has a disturbingly long wrap sheet and I've wondered to myself, "how was this person allowed back out into civilized society."

kapitza 10y ago
Society's tolerance for crime is bizarrely irrational. There will be about 800 murders in Chicago this year -- yawn. Now imagine if 800 Chicagoans were killed by radiation leaks from a nuclear plant. "Well, you can't have electricity without plutonium. Do you want to turn everyone's lights off?" Or if 800 African-Americans were lynched Emmett Till style by KKK thugs. "Regrettable, but what are you going to do? And don't white people have legitimate complaints?" Even murder rates can be fudged -- turn the homicide into a "death investigation": http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2014/Chicago-crime-rates/ http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2014/Chicago-... Another point to keep in mind when you see these too-good-to-be-true stories is that criminal subcultures are actually quite conservative. When laws and policies change, it takes time for people to collectively figure out what they can get away with. This makes crime rates a lagging indicator -- we're still experiencing the positive effects of the crime crackdown of the '90s, not just in incarceration rates but in cultural behavior. The mid-'60s were another period when social scientists realized that punishment was a medieval anachronism. It took 10-20 years to see the full effects of these policies, and another 10 for the political backlash to get started. It seems like we're due for another round of this pendulum.
- iamdave 10y ago
  What's with the downvotes to this? If there's something to be debated I would have liked to read it because this comment, I don't disagree with.
  - sdenton4 10y ago
    There's a wide variety of explanations for the crime drop, including from increased educational attainment, overall better economic situation, and lead poisoning caused by leaded gasoline subsiding. Attributing it solely to crackdowns in the 90's is pretty disingenuous; crime had been falling before Giuliani, and in a broad array of cities which hasn't instituted tough on crime policies.
- alpsgolden 10y ago
  It seems like we're due for another round of this pendulum. I fear this too. As someone who now lives in a city that suffered enormously from the 70s crime rise, and benefited greatly from the 2000s decline in crime, the prospect of another crime wave makes me wonder if I should hold off on buying a house.
  - michaelbuddy 10y ago
    ask your local trustworthy agents and your local police whether you should buy.
- emmelaich 10y ago
  > Society's tolerance for crime is bizarrely irrational. In 1940, a survey was taken of teachers asking them to list the five most important problems in school. They were: (1) talking out of turn; (2) chewing gum; (3) making noise; (4) running in halls; and (5) cutting in line. Fifty years later, the survey was repeated. The 1990 list was substantially revised: (1) drug abuse; (2) alcohol abuse; (3) pregnancy; (4) suicide; (5) rape. From http://www.aei.org/publication/defining-deviancy-up/ http://www.aei.org/publication/defining-deviancy-up/, Charles Krauthammers corollary to Pat Moynihan's Defining Deviancy Down. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm Still good reading and still controversial after all these years.
parhurs 10y ago
You make an intresting point about the stats. Can you expand on the backing off part, though? And the question I would ask is, "what should have been done to prevent this spiraling into a life of crime, and why wasn't it?"
- alpsgolden 10y ago
  Can you expand on the backing off part, though? Peter Moskos has written a lot on this. As part of his PhD, he spent two years as an actual cop in Baltimore. Now he is a professor of criminology in New York. IMO, he does a good job writing in a balanced and truthful perspective about crime. "I don't know what's going on everywhere (or even most-where), but I can tell you a bit about Baltimore. And I suspect it holds true in many cities. I looked calls for service, arrest numbers, and crimes. Most dramatic is the drop of arrests in Western District....Now there are good and not so good reasons for this drop in arrests. But leaving that why: it happened. Police were less involved, by choice and necessity, and violence skyrocketed. Just because correlation does prove causing, correlation certainly doesn't mean causation is impossible or even unlikely. I mean, what else changed in the Western except police and crime?...Cops stopped making discretionary arrests and being proactive in clearing corners and frisking subjects. Look, it's no surprise where shootings happens and who gets shot." http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/01/the-baltimore-6-effect.html http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/01/the-baltimore-6-effect.h... And then read this one about Chicago: http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/11/the-best-of-times-worst-of-times.html http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/11/the-best-of-times-worst-... And a few other posts http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/02/defining-ferguson-effect.html http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/02/defining-ferguson-effect... and http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/03/chicago-violence.html http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/03/chicago-violence.html And the question I would ask is, "what should have been done to prevent this spiraling into a life of crime, and why wasn't it?" My reading is that there is a total breakdown in discipline in many of these families and communities. The kids that end up being problems are not getting discipline at home, and they're not getting it from the school (see http://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-monster-factory/ http://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-monster-factory/ or http://www.anurbanteacherseducation.com/2011/02/tfa-alumnus-describes-barriers-to.html http://www.anurbanteacherseducation.com/2011/02/tfa-alumnus-... ) I also think that when you have open-air drug dealing, and gangs openly controlling the streets, then that turns senior gang members into role models, and it incentivizes young teenagers to join gangs for protection. Then as part of joining, they get involved in beefs and violence. That is my take from reading various ethnographies. The reason nothing is being done is because prevailing opinion does not agree with me. The emphasis over the past fifty years has been less discipline in schools. ( http://www.city-journal.org/html/who-killed-school-discipline-11749.html http://www.city-journal.org/html/who-killed-school-disciplin... ). There was a police crackdown in the 1990s, but it was more targeted at keeping violent people out of the nice neighborhoods, rather than completely eliminating gang violence in the ghetto neighborhoods. I think that is because the liberals see the police as suspect and problematic, and don't want to empower them, and because the conservatives don't really care about the ghetto as long as it doesn't effect them.
sdenton4 10y ago
According to 2014 FBI stats related in June, 2014 was a 50 year low for the us homicide rate. Two takeaways: first, FBI data hasn't been released for 2015 yet. Second, as the denominator is getting smaller, small variance leads to bigger year on year percentage shifts.
- sdenton4 10y ago
  Ah, correction. FBI data is out for 2015. Murder nationwide has gone from about 13k to about 15k. The point about small denominators stands, especially in light of a 50 year low in 2014. Is this a new murderous America or a reversion toward the mean? Only you can prevent the grievous misuse of statistics.
  - nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
    [edit] sorry guys didn't realize this comment was horrible flamebait, deleted
    - omegaworks 10y ago
      You could also easily make the argument that the murder rate is up due to increased weapons sales. It's all about the policy you want to sell. You're seeking to silence legitimate criticism. I'm seeking to reduce the likelihood someone will do something irrational with a loaded weapon. If you're interested in facts, there's only one side supported by evidence [0] but hey, don't let that deter your campaign. Keep championing the destruction of black bodies. 0. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
      - nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
        The link is about guns and suicide, how is that meaningful as a response to my comment? Suicide is not crime, and I didn't mention guns at all... or anything about black people. I'm not trying to silence anybody, in fact I'm saying something that mainstream media is unwilling to say. I just pointed out that recent criticism of police is by far the most likely reason crime rates are increasing in big, poor cities.
creepydata 10y ago
I read somewhere that one way to measure crime is surveys that ask people about crimes that they have been a victim of in the previous year. These surveys indicate that the reduction of crime isn't due to reduction in reporting or policing.
- DanBC 10y ago
  That's how England and Wales does it. The police record crimes, but these are not seen as statistically sound, and so the Office For National Statistics also does a crime survey. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/guide-to-finding-crime-statistics/crime-survey-for-england-and-wales--csew-/index.html http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/htt... > The CSEW, formerly known as the British Crime Survey (BCS), is a face-to-face survey asking people who are resident in households in England and Wales about their experiences of a range of crimes in the past year. The survey interviews both adults and children. The survey started in 1982 (covering crime experienced in 1981) and is conducted on a continuous basis with around 35,000 adults and 3,000 children aged 10 to 15 years old interviewed each year.
- YokoZar 10y ago
  "In the past year, were you a victim of murder?"
bluedino 10y ago
>> And homicide rates have risen substantially in the last two years Homicides are down in the majority of cities, like NYC, Flint and Detroit. However, they are up in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and St. Louis which are bucking the national trend of lower homicide rates.
- edblarney 10y ago
  Homicide rates - and some other crimes - are massively distorted by small, high-crime urban areas. If you pluck out the data a very small number of residents from specific hoods in Detroit, Chicago, DC etc. - the 'rest of America's' homicide rates start to look more sane. If you pluck Aboriginal crime out of Canadian crime stats, the numbers start to look like those of Northern Europe. I think this is important because random crimes that happen in 'normal circumstances' may not be a function of the crazy social dysfunction in certain neighbourhoods. I'm not saying anything political here, I do believe anyone murdering anyone else is 'responsible' for it and can't just blame the fact that their dad was in jail, mom absent, schools sucked etc. - however - those are obviously massively correlating factors in some areas, much more than others. If I were pres, I would basically have a 'national crime / social reconstruction strategy' focused on those 'bad areas' that comprised of a bunch of things. Most of America is within the range of 'normal' for homicide - but still considerably more violent than other advanced nations.
  - temp 10y ago
    >If you pluck Aboriginal crime out of Canadian crime stats, the numbers start to look like those of Northern Europe. Do you believe Northern Europe does not have minorities with higher crime rates?
    - edblarney 10y ago
      Of course, but not nearly in the same vein. Inner city Detroit, and Aboriginal reserves are war zones compared to a 'minority are of Manchester'.
fweespeech 10y ago
> And homicide rates have risen substantially in the last two years (up 10.4% in 2015, and projected for 13.1% this year). These are the biggest increases in a generation. Pretending a 49% drop over 20 years is sustainable continuously with no outliers is...absurd. There is a reason these sorts of trendlines are generally drawn over 5-10 years of data, not 1 or 2. Please, just stop pushing your agenda on HN. https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low > Homicide rates were considerably higher in the United States during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, but over the past 25 years, have fallen nearly continuously: > As Pew has reported in recent years, in fact, the American public is "unaware" that the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. And while Pew doesn't report on it, it's also a safe bet that the public is also unaware that homicide rates have collapsed as total gun ownership in the United States has increased significantly.
- alpsgolden 10y ago
  I am not arguing about the crime changes over the past 20 years. The original article was about crime changes in the past few years, based on changes to policy in the last few years. I think the changes to crime policy implemented twenty years ago were good, and good impacts on crime. But the changes in the past few years are bad, and will result in an increase in crime. Pretending a 49% drop over 20 years is sustainable continuously with no outliers is...absurd. ... As Pew has reported in recent years, in fact, the American public is "unaware" that the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. In my city, the homicide rate is still 5X higher than it was in 1950s. That's hundreds of people dead each year, unnecessarily. And that's after dramatic improvements in medical technology! I have a lot higher standards than a 50% decline since the 1990 peak. Let's get it back down to the 1950s level.
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    > In my city, the homicide rate is still 5X higher than it was in 1950s. That's hundreds of people dead each year, unnecessarily. And that's after dramatic improvements in medical technology! I have a lot higher standards than a 50% decline since the 1990 peak. Let's get it back down to the 1950s level. Yet you repeatedly, blatantly cherry pick data that is just more lies of omission like this one where you try to defend yourself. Now you move the goal posts and show complete ignorance of the way population densities have changed since the 1950s and the relationship between such density and crime rates. > I am not arguing about the crime changes over the past 20 years. The original article was about crime changes in the past few years, based on changes to policy in the last few years. I think the changes to crime policy implemented twenty years ago were good, and good impacts on crime. But the changes in the past few years are bad, and will result in an increase in crime. Nothing substantial has changed unless you are truly and genuinely ignorant of history. You think BLM is new? The LA riots and numerous similar events have been caused by killing unarmed civilians by police, regardless of justification. Stop being a sheep and actually read the history of the past 50 years. BLM and other protests are pretty fucking peaceful compared to the LA riots and other events in the past with similar causes. Get back to me when these "riots" and "policy changes" involved 10+ deaths on a regular basis. The only people claiming it is getting worse are salesman peddling fear and ignorance. Stop being so easily persuaded and actually educate yourself.
vacri 10y ago
> Homicide rates are the key number to track. It's also basically the only thing you can compare between nations as well. About ten years ago I saw a New Zealand-based study that took crimes from NZ, Australia, and the US, and rated them using the other countries' parameters. I've sadly been unable to find this study again, but it was very interesting in its results - the way crime is reported, the same event in Australia and NZ will show up about five times more than in the US. If two blokes have a fight outside a bar and it involves weapons, in the US, usually just one charge will be brought. But in Aus/NZ, the way the law works, about five charges are brought, eg from simple assault to attempted murder, and only the most severe successful charge would be used for sentencing. However, when the stats are aggregated, it's done by charges brought, not convictions (for some odd reason).
bjourne 10y ago
> Homicide rates are the key number to track. Other crime statistics have big reporting problems. Police can easily not report a crime (especially when there is pressure to make the stats look good), people stop calling police if they think the police won't do anything, etc. But it is very hard to hide a body. I agree with you, it is true that the homicide rate is the most fair statistic to use. But even that can be manipulated. For example, it is often hard to distinguish between arson and accidental fires. Some types of murder can appear to be suicides at first glance and vice versa. Another twist is disappearances where the body hasn't been found yet. This is why you'll never find an exact number of murders for a specific year, just an estimate. So different reporting routines or an overworked police force could definitely impact the number of murders reported each year. For example suppose a junkie falls from a balcony and dies, if the police department have spare resources maybe they'll investigate and find out it's a murder, if they don't maybe they'll be happy to close the case as an accident.

kapitza 10y ago

Society's tolerance for crime is bizarrely irrational. There will be about 800 murders in Chicago this year -- yawn. Now imagine if 800 Chicagoans were killed by radiation leaks from a nuclear plant. "Well, you can't have electricity without plutonium. Do you want to turn everyone's lights off?" Or if 800 African-Americans were lynched Emmett Till style by KKK thugs. "Regrettable, but what are you going to do? And don't white people have legitimate complaints?" Even murder rates can be fudged -- turn the homicide into a "death investigation": http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2014/Chicago-crime-rates/ http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2014/Chicago-... Another point to keep in mind when you see these too-good-to-be-true stories is that criminal subcultures are actually quite conservative. When laws and policies change, it takes time for people to collectively figure out what they can get away with. This makes crime rates a lagging indicator -- we're still experiencing the positive effects of the crime crackdown of the '90s, not just in incarceration rates but in cultural behavior. The mid-'60s were another period when social scientists realized that punishment was a medieval anachronism. It took 10-20 years to see the full effects of these policies, and another 10 for the political backlash to get started. It seems like we're due for another round of this pendulum.

iamdave 10y ago
What's with the downvotes to this? If there's something to be debated I would have liked to read it because this comment, I don't disagree with.
- sdenton4 10y ago
  There's a wide variety of explanations for the crime drop, including from increased educational attainment, overall better economic situation, and lead poisoning caused by leaded gasoline subsiding. Attributing it solely to crackdowns in the 90's is pretty disingenuous; crime had been falling before Giuliani, and in a broad array of cities which hasn't instituted tough on crime policies.
alpsgolden 10y ago
It seems like we're due for another round of this pendulum. I fear this too. As someone who now lives in a city that suffered enormously from the 70s crime rise, and benefited greatly from the 2000s decline in crime, the prospect of another crime wave makes me wonder if I should hold off on buying a house.
- michaelbuddy 10y ago
  ask your local trustworthy agents and your local police whether you should buy.
emmelaich 10y ago
> Society's tolerance for crime is bizarrely irrational. In 1940, a survey was taken of teachers asking them to list the five most important problems in school. They were: (1) talking out of turn; (2) chewing gum; (3) making noise; (4) running in halls; and (5) cutting in line. Fifty years later, the survey was repeated. The 1990 list was substantially revised: (1) drug abuse; (2) alcohol abuse; (3) pregnancy; (4) suicide; (5) rape. From http://www.aei.org/publication/defining-deviancy-up/ http://www.aei.org/publication/defining-deviancy-up/, Charles Krauthammers corollary to Pat Moynihan's Defining Deviancy Down. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm Still good reading and still controversial after all these years.

parhurs 10y ago

You make an intresting point about the stats. Can you expand on the backing off part, though? And the question I would ask is, "what should have been done to prevent this spiraling into a life of crime, and why wasn't it?"

alpsgolden 10y ago
Can you expand on the backing off part, though? Peter Moskos has written a lot on this. As part of his PhD, he spent two years as an actual cop in Baltimore. Now he is a professor of criminology in New York. IMO, he does a good job writing in a balanced and truthful perspective about crime. "I don't know what's going on everywhere (or even most-where), but I can tell you a bit about Baltimore. And I suspect it holds true in many cities. I looked calls for service, arrest numbers, and crimes. Most dramatic is the drop of arrests in Western District....Now there are good and not so good reasons for this drop in arrests. But leaving that why: it happened. Police were less involved, by choice and necessity, and violence skyrocketed. Just because correlation does prove causing, correlation certainly doesn't mean causation is impossible or even unlikely. I mean, what else changed in the Western except police and crime?...Cops stopped making discretionary arrests and being proactive in clearing corners and frisking subjects. Look, it's no surprise where shootings happens and who gets shot." http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/01/the-baltimore-6-effect.html http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/01/the-baltimore-6-effect.h... And then read this one about Chicago: http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/11/the-best-of-times-worst-of-times.html http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/11/the-best-of-times-worst-... And a few other posts http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/02/defining-ferguson-effect.html http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/02/defining-ferguson-effect... and http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/03/chicago-violence.html http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/03/chicago-violence.html And the question I would ask is, "what should have been done to prevent this spiraling into a life of crime, and why wasn't it?" My reading is that there is a total breakdown in discipline in many of these families and communities. The kids that end up being problems are not getting discipline at home, and they're not getting it from the school (see http://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-monster-factory/ http://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-monster-factory/ or http://www.anurbanteacherseducation.com/2011/02/tfa-alumnus-describes-barriers-to.html http://www.anurbanteacherseducation.com/2011/02/tfa-alumnus-... ) I also think that when you have open-air drug dealing, and gangs openly controlling the streets, then that turns senior gang members into role models, and it incentivizes young teenagers to join gangs for protection. Then as part of joining, they get involved in beefs and violence. That is my take from reading various ethnographies. The reason nothing is being done is because prevailing opinion does not agree with me. The emphasis over the past fifty years has been less discipline in schools. ( http://www.city-journal.org/html/who-killed-school-discipline-11749.html http://www.city-journal.org/html/who-killed-school-disciplin... ). There was a police crackdown in the 1990s, but it was more targeted at keeping violent people out of the nice neighborhoods, rather than completely eliminating gang violence in the ghetto neighborhoods. I think that is because the liberals see the police as suspect and problematic, and don't want to empower them, and because the conservatives don't really care about the ghetto as long as it doesn't effect them.

sdenton4 10y ago

According to 2014 FBI stats related in June, 2014 was a 50 year low for the us homicide rate. Two takeaways: first, FBI data hasn't been released for 2015 yet. Second, as the denominator is getting smaller, small variance leads to bigger year on year percentage shifts.

sdenton4 10y ago
Ah, correction. FBI data is out for 2015. Murder nationwide has gone from about 13k to about 15k. The point about small denominators stands, especially in light of a 50 year low in 2014. Is this a new murderous America or a reversion toward the mean? Only you can prevent the grievous misuse of statistics.
- nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
  [edit] sorry guys didn't realize this comment was horrible flamebait, deleted
  - omegaworks 10y ago
    You could also easily make the argument that the murder rate is up due to increased weapons sales. It's all about the policy you want to sell. You're seeking to silence legitimate criticism. I'm seeking to reduce the likelihood someone will do something irrational with a loaded weapon. If you're interested in facts, there's only one side supported by evidence [0] but hey, don't let that deter your campaign. Keep championing the destruction of black bodies. 0. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
    - nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
      The link is about guns and suicide, how is that meaningful as a response to my comment? Suicide is not crime, and I didn't mention guns at all... or anything about black people. I'm not trying to silence anybody, in fact I'm saying something that mainstream media is unwilling to say. I just pointed out that recent criticism of police is by far the most likely reason crime rates are increasing in big, poor cities.

creepydata 10y ago

I read somewhere that one way to measure crime is surveys that ask people about crimes that they have been a victim of in the previous year. These surveys indicate that the reduction of crime isn't due to reduction in reporting or policing.

DanBC 10y ago
That's how England and Wales does it. The police record crimes, but these are not seen as statistically sound, and so the Office For National Statistics also does a crime survey. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/guide-to-finding-crime-statistics/crime-survey-for-england-and-wales--csew-/index.html http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/htt... > The CSEW, formerly known as the British Crime Survey (BCS), is a face-to-face survey asking people who are resident in households in England and Wales about their experiences of a range of crimes in the past year. The survey interviews both adults and children. The survey started in 1982 (covering crime experienced in 1981) and is conducted on a continuous basis with around 35,000 adults and 3,000 children aged 10 to 15 years old interviewed each year.
YokoZar 10y ago
"In the past year, were you a victim of murder?"

bluedino 10y ago

>> And homicide rates have risen substantially in the last two years Homicides are down in the majority of cities, like NYC, Flint and Detroit. However, they are up in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and St. Louis which are bucking the national trend of lower homicide rates.

edblarney 10y ago
Homicide rates - and some other crimes - are massively distorted by small, high-crime urban areas. If you pluck out the data a very small number of residents from specific hoods in Detroit, Chicago, DC etc. - the 'rest of America's' homicide rates start to look more sane. If you pluck Aboriginal crime out of Canadian crime stats, the numbers start to look like those of Northern Europe. I think this is important because random crimes that happen in 'normal circumstances' may not be a function of the crazy social dysfunction in certain neighbourhoods. I'm not saying anything political here, I do believe anyone murdering anyone else is 'responsible' for it and can't just blame the fact that their dad was in jail, mom absent, schools sucked etc. - however - those are obviously massively correlating factors in some areas, much more than others. If I were pres, I would basically have a 'national crime / social reconstruction strategy' focused on those 'bad areas' that comprised of a bunch of things. Most of America is within the range of 'normal' for homicide - but still considerably more violent than other advanced nations.
- temp 10y ago
  >If you pluck Aboriginal crime out of Canadian crime stats, the numbers start to look like those of Northern Europe. Do you believe Northern Europe does not have minorities with higher crime rates?
  - edblarney 10y ago
    Of course, but not nearly in the same vein. Inner city Detroit, and Aboriginal reserves are war zones compared to a 'minority are of Manchester'.

fweespeech 10y ago

> And homicide rates have risen substantially in the last two years (up 10.4% in 2015, and projected for 13.1% this year). These are the biggest increases in a generation. Pretending a 49% drop over 20 years is sustainable continuously with no outliers is...absurd. There is a reason these sorts of trendlines are generally drawn over 5-10 years of data, not 1 or 2. Please, just stop pushing your agenda on HN. https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low > Homicide rates were considerably higher in the United States during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, but over the past 25 years, have fallen nearly continuously: > As Pew has reported in recent years, in fact, the American public is "unaware" that the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. And while Pew doesn't report on it, it's also a safe bet that the public is also unaware that homicide rates have collapsed as total gun ownership in the United States has increased significantly.

alpsgolden 10y ago
I am not arguing about the crime changes over the past 20 years. The original article was about crime changes in the past few years, based on changes to policy in the last few years. I think the changes to crime policy implemented twenty years ago were good, and good impacts on crime. But the changes in the past few years are bad, and will result in an increase in crime. Pretending a 49% drop over 20 years is sustainable continuously with no outliers is...absurd. ... As Pew has reported in recent years, in fact, the American public is "unaware" that the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. In my city, the homicide rate is still 5X higher than it was in 1950s. That's hundreds of people dead each year, unnecessarily. And that's after dramatic improvements in medical technology! I have a lot higher standards than a 50% decline since the 1990 peak. Let's get it back down to the 1950s level.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  > In my city, the homicide rate is still 5X higher than it was in 1950s. That's hundreds of people dead each year, unnecessarily. And that's after dramatic improvements in medical technology! I have a lot higher standards than a 50% decline since the 1990 peak. Let's get it back down to the 1950s level. Yet you repeatedly, blatantly cherry pick data that is just more lies of omission like this one where you try to defend yourself. Now you move the goal posts and show complete ignorance of the way population densities have changed since the 1950s and the relationship between such density and crime rates. > I am not arguing about the crime changes over the past 20 years. The original article was about crime changes in the past few years, based on changes to policy in the last few years. I think the changes to crime policy implemented twenty years ago were good, and good impacts on crime. But the changes in the past few years are bad, and will result in an increase in crime. Nothing substantial has changed unless you are truly and genuinely ignorant of history. You think BLM is new? The LA riots and numerous similar events have been caused by killing unarmed civilians by police, regardless of justification. Stop being a sheep and actually read the history of the past 50 years. BLM and other protests are pretty fucking peaceful compared to the LA riots and other events in the past with similar causes. Get back to me when these "riots" and "policy changes" involved 10+ deaths on a regular basis. The only people claiming it is getting worse are salesman peddling fear and ignorance. Stop being so easily persuaded and actually educate yourself.

vacri 10y ago

> Homicide rates are the key number to track. It's also basically the only thing you can compare between nations as well. About ten years ago I saw a New Zealand-based study that took crimes from NZ, Australia, and the US, and rated them using the other countries' parameters. I've sadly been unable to find this study again, but it was very interesting in its results - the way crime is reported, the same event in Australia and NZ will show up about five times more than in the US. If two blokes have a fight outside a bar and it involves weapons, in the US, usually just one charge will be brought. But in Aus/NZ, the way the law works, about five charges are brought, eg from simple assault to attempted murder, and only the most severe successful charge would be used for sentencing. However, when the stats are aggregated, it's done by charges brought, not convictions (for some odd reason).

bjourne 10y ago

> Homicide rates are the key number to track. Other crime statistics have big reporting problems. Police can easily not report a crime (especially when there is pressure to make the stats look good), people stop calling police if they think the police won't do anything, etc. But it is very hard to hide a body. I agree with you, it is true that the homicide rate is the most fair statistic to use. But even that can be manipulated. For example, it is often hard to distinguish between arson and accidental fires. Some types of murder can appear to be suicides at first glance and vice versa. Another twist is disappearances where the body hasn't been found yet. This is why you'll never find an exact number of murders for a specific year, just an estimate. So different reporting routines or an overworked police force could definitely impact the number of murders reported each year. For example suppose a junkie falls from a balcony and dies, if the police department have spare resources maybe they'll investigate and find out it's a murder, if they don't maybe they'll be happy to close the case as an accident.