Murder on the Rise-

[welsh]

Well after years of declines in the US, crime is suddenly back on the rise!

Crime

Bad news about bad guys

Jun 15th 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

Violent crime appears to have stopped falling

AMERICANS worry about crime. In a big country with hyperactive media, any sensational horror is quickly broadcast from coast to coast, making many people nervous. Last year, for example, after a teenager shot dead ten people in and around a Minnesota high school, pollsters asked a sample of Americans how likely it was that a similar massacre might occur in their own town. Nearly three-quarters said it was “very” or “somewhat” likely.

What? Like a mass murder doesn't happen in every small town?

The FBI's announcement this week that violent crime rose by 2.5% between 2004 and 2005 will soothe no nerves. Nor will the news that murders jumped by 5%—the biggest spike in 15 years. The new numbers should be treated with caution; they do not yet take account of population growth, which is about 1% a year. But still, some experts worry that America's long run of success in reducing crime may be over.

Why did it fall? Some credit “zero-tolerance” policing. Some think long jail terms keep the worst offenders out of circulation. Others look at demographic factors, such as the legalisation of abortion in 1973, which some argue, controversially, prevented many potential criminals from being born. Now their number is rising again.

Love the abortion crime- get rid of criminals by getting rid of the children most likely to be criminals.

Or could it be that for years guns were being banned?

The sharpest increases in murders last year occurred in the Midwest, in cities such as Omaha and Milwaukee. Granted, a 55% increase in Omaha is only 11 more murders. But the numbers highlight a trend for the big gangs of New York and Los Angeles to spread into heartland towns. “A small group of youths are carrying guns, wearing colours and killing each other over trivial disputes,” says George Kelling of the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University. Mostly, it is not about turf, but about “dissing”, he says.

Interesting that the group most likely to commit or be murdered are the inner city kids who get easy guns.

 

[Elissar]

Interesting that the group most likely to commit or be murdered are the inner city kids who get easy guns.

It's not the fact that they had easy access to guns, hell almost every person i went to school with had easy access to guns, i myself had a cabinet full of them in my bedroom.

I believe that if falls more to lack of supervision, bad parenting, and popular media, the glorification of murder, gangs and crime in the inner city's most popular music, rap. Add to that the things like easy access to drugs and the quick money that can be made by selling them and you have a good idea why these kids are more likely to murder or be murdered.

 

[welsh]

Damn that Gangsta Rap is killing those kids!

Yes, I agree there's more to it than just easy guns. But it seems a bit... criminal.. to force cities and states with high crime rates to reduce gun restrictions just so manufacturers can make more money.

 

[Elissar]

Even if you completely outlaw privately owned firearms in a city, you will still have a high gun-crime rate. Look at DC for an example of that.

It's not that the guns are there Welsh, it's that no one is really supervising the people most likely to use them.

 

[welsh]

Elli- DC is a crap city as a test case. Consider how small the city is, how easy it is to get a gun from neighboring states, how historically crappy the police force is..... DC is a bad case.

Are all privately owned firearms illegal in DC?

 

[Elissar]

Meh, while they are not outlawed outright, the restrictions and hoops you have to go through to purchase one legaly there are ridiculous, must be registered, you must have a licence, a permit to carry it if you ever want to take it out of your home.

Is it any wonder that people bring guns in illegaly from other areas?

And yet, it's not really the citizens that obey the law that have these illegal firearms, it's the ones most prone to use them.

An example of how firearms restriction laws make it easier for the criminal.

 

[welsh]

And you are supposing that this would be better if guns were less regulated? How? Make it easier for criminals to carry guns?

I suspect that the answer isn't in guns alone, but in other elements as well. High inequality, lousey cops- all help make crime hign in DC and other places.

But if these numbers are right, that violent crime is on the rise at the same time that guns are easier to get, than there is a more nation-wide correlation to consider.

 

[OnTheBounce]

The problem with this debate is that both sides generally fall into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this", AKA the Fallacy of False Cause).

Guns of themselves do not cause crime. Period, end of discussion. To argue otherwise is to resort to a form of animism.

You will not find a correlation between gun-ownership and crime/murder. For every nation that you point to that has ready availability of firearms and rampant crime you will find another with the same level of availability and much lower or even non-existant crime. For every nation where you find near zero gun availability and non-existant crime you will find another with the same availability and rampant crime.

The fact is that these models are so complex that in studying them you are pretty much stepping into Heraclitus' river, which cannot be stepped into twice since it changes, or perhaps Cratylus' river, which cannot be stepped into once since it changes even as you step into it.

I couldn't begin to list all of the factors that I could see influencing crime in general and gun crime specifically, at least not w/o resorting to writing a mind-numbing post, and I'm not sure that these message board converstations even do the topic justice.

For instance, the focus of the debate generally tends to be availability of guns due to legislation -- which would have a deleterious effect, to be sure considering the number of weapons available in the US before the enactment of the Brady Bill -- but I haven't seen any reference to how perhaps it's the goings-on post-9/11 that may have some influence on it. After all, with the US military currently waging a "war on terror" in two countries and the results pervading the media with its context-less presentation, couldn't this have some influence as well?

Of course, I'm not saying that this is the cause in the murder spike -- although the delay between the start of the invasion of Afghanistan and the current spike of murder might be something to think about since it could have taken some time for people to reach a point of saturation with violence on the nightly news -- just that it might be one of the myriads of factors influencing it.

Then again, it might just be a shift in attitude in the post-9/11 US of A where violence is a more acceptable way to solve one's problems, just with a handgun instead of a smart-bomb...

Oh, one thing I will add. While I'm quite leftward leaning on my politics -- my definition of a fascist is anyone to the left of Trotsky -- I'm also a gun owner and have served and am serving again in the US Army. That didn't keep me from noticing that I feel very much more comfortable walking around the street of Germany w/o a gun than I do in Georgia...

Like I said, there's no easy answers on this one, and I don't pretend to take sides on the issue, either.

OTB

 

[John Uskglass]

Gangster rap is dead though. How could it have a negative influence?

 

[Pajari]

Elli- DC is a crap city as a test case. Consider how small the city is, how easy it is to get a gun from neighboring states, how historically crappy the police force is..... DC is a bad case.

Are all privately owned firearms illegal in DC?

Privately owned firearms registered in the district before 1977 are legal, as long as you keep them locked or unassembled in your home. Machine guns and semiauto guns with more than 12-round magazines are illegal, too. So yeah.

Also, if you want a better example, look to pretty much the entire state of California. Some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and they probably make up a large chunk of those murders on the chart (increases in the midwest notwithstanding). The problem with 90% of these violent crimes involving guns is gangs, and unless you're going to do something to get rid of the gangs, you're not going to solve the problem of violent crime. Criminals will get whatever weapons they want (especially in the case of a gang, with a large organizational structure and most likely connections with arms dealers) regardless of the laws that people pass, and to be honest restricting gun ownership only hurts the people that would use the guns in a responsible and legal manner.

That said, I blame the increase in gun crime on the shitty games released last year.

 

[Bradylama]

Isn't it possible, maybe, that crime rates increase and decrease due to factors that are beyond our control? How many variables have changed between 2001 and 2004 to cause a relative spike (charts are fun! ) in crime? Good luck finding them, and good luck figuring out whether or not we're even capable of influencing them, or should be influencing them.

 

[welsh]

A couple of thoughts-

While I agree that crime rates have to do with more varied social and economic factors than mere gun ownership, I think it would be in error to discount guns per se.

In this sense I disagree with Bradylama- how can crime- a human behavior- be beyond the control of human beings?

OnTheBounce- I would be curious how you correlate the increase in gun crime to the war on terrorism, invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think a better correlation is that that the population of those most prone to crime - the 15-22 population- is again on the increase because 1980 is about the same year abortion begins to get restricted- more babies born in socio-economic conditions likely to lead to violence may lead to more criminals in about 15-20 years (or about now).

More on the report here-
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

A summary-

Preliminary Crime Statistics for 2005
Washington, D.C.—The FBI released the Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report for 2005 today, which showed a mixed direction in crime nationwide: the number of violent crime offenses rose 2.5 percent, but the number of property crime offenses decreased 1.6 percent when compared with data from 2004. The FBI collected these preliminary data from 12,485 law enforcement agencies that submitted 6 to 12 months of offense data through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program in both 2004 and 2005.

Violent Crime

The violent crime category includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. Nationally, preliminary data for 2005 showed increases in three of the four violent crimes from the previous year’s data. The number of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters rose 4.8 percent. Robbery offenses increased 4.5 percent, and the number of aggravated assaults was up 1.9 percent. Forcible rape was the only offense among the violent crimes that decreased in volume in 2005, down 1.9 percent from the 2004 figure.

A breakdown of the 2005 data by population group revealed that all city population groups experienced increases in violent crime when compared with those data reported for the previous year, with the exception of the Nation’s largest cities, 1 million and over in population, where the number of violent crimes was down 0.4 percent. By percent change in the number of violent crime offenses in 2005 compared with totals from 2004, cities with populations from 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants saw the greatest increase, 8.3 percent, and cities with populations of 10,000 to 24,999 saw the smallest increase, 0.5 percent. In the Nation’s metropolitan counties, violent crime was up 2.1 percent, and in nonmetropolitan counties, it increased 1.0 percent.

A further examination of violent crime data for the population groups showed that cities with populations from 100,000 to 249,999 had the greatest increase in the number of murders, up 12.5 percent. Cities with 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants experienced the greatest increases in both robbery, 9.9 percent, and aggravated assault, 8.5 percent. The number of offenses of forcible rape decreased in all city population groups except in those cities with under 10,000 in population, where the number of forcible rape offenses was up 1.5 percent from the 2004 level.

The Nation’s four regions all saw increases in violent crime in 2005. The Midwest experienced the steepest increase, 5.7 percent. The West had a 1.9-percent increase from the previous year’s number; the South, a 1.8-percent rise; and the Northeast, a 1.4-percent increase. All four regions had increases in murder, robbery, and aggravated assault. Contrary to the other three violent crime offenses, the number of forcible rapes declined in each region.

Property Crime

Crimes that the UCR Program publishes in the property crime category include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. (Arson is considered a property crime, but the arson data are not included in the property crime total.) For 2005, the number of larceny-theft offenses was down 2.5 percent, and the number of motor vehicle thefts showed no significant change from the previous year’s data. Burglary, however, showed a 0.6-percent increase in the number of offenses from the 2004 data. The number of arson offenses decreased 2.2 percent.

Among the population groups, cities with populations of 1 million and over had the greatest decrease, 3.3 percent, in property crimes in 2005 when compared with 2004 figures. Cities with 25,000 to 49,999 inhabitants and the Nation’s smallest cities, those with populations of less than 10,000, had the smallest decrease in their property crimes, 0.7 percent. Collectively, metropolitan counties registered a 0.6-percent decrease in property crime, and nonmetropolitan counties, a 1.0-percent decline.

A breakdown of property crimes by population group showed that the only groups to show decreases in burglary were the Nation’s largest cities, those with 1 million and over in population, and nonmetropolitan counties, with declines of 1.5-percent and 2.7-percent, respectively. The number of burglary offenses increased by the greatest percentage, 3.5 percent, in cities with 250,000 to 499,999 inhabitants. The number of larceny-theft offenses decreased in all population groups, with the Nation’s largest cities showing the greatest decrease, 4.3 percent. The number of motor vehicle thefts increased 1.9 percent from the previous year in cities with 10,000 to 24,999 people, the greatest increase by percentage of all city population groups. Cities with 1 million and over inhabitants registered the greatest decline in motor vehicle thefts, 1.8 percent. For the offense of arson, cities 500,000 to 999,999 in population showed the greatest decrease by percentage, a drop of 10.6 percent from 2004 data.

The number of property crimes decreased in all four regions of the country. The greatest decrease was in the Northeast Region with a 3.1-percent drop. Property crimes declined

1.7 percent in the South, 1.3 percent in the West, and 0.7 percent in the Midwest. However, a breakdown of property crimes by offense type showed that the number of burglaries decreased in the Northeast alone, dropping 2.4 percent from the previous year’s figure. Burglary increased

3.8 percent in the Midwest, 0.5 percent in the South, and 0.1 percent in the West.

Final crime statistics for 2005 will be available in Crime in the United States, which will be published this fall on the FBI’s Internet site.

So, why the spike in violent crime? The War on Terror? Inequality? W? Less social and educational summer programs for urban populations?

 

[OnTheBounce]

OnTheBounce- I would be curious how you correlate the increase in gun crime to the war on terrorism, invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I don't. It was something I thought of while reading this thread. I threw it out there mainly as food for thought. However, I will say that people's attitudes seem to have shifted back to a more 1950s attitude when it comes to violence. That whole "Just War" idea is back with a vengeance, and it seems that the only objection that many Americans have to the war in Iraq is either that it's just far too expensive a proprosition or that too many of "our boys" are dying there rather than any issues like human rights or the fact that Dub-Ya has set international relations back nearly a century.

With all the work that's been done regarding violence in the media I think an argument could be drawn up for it, though. You can't go anywhere or do anything w/o hearing/seeing something about what's going on "down range", and quite a bit of it is accompanied by some pretty graphic footage.

My point was simply that there are so many factors that could possibly be influencing crime rates that it's nearly impossible to have anything resembling an educated opinion on them. This was echoed by Bradylama, albeit I am saying this with less of a fatalistic tone than I got out of that post.

The abortion argument is interesting, and I think there might be something to that. Then again I think there's something to pretty much every factor that's been brought up, and there's the rub: I think it's the complex inter-relation of factors that's at work, not like some people seem to think only one or at most a few.

OTB

 

[Montez]

I don't know about the rest of the country, but the rise of violent crime and murder in Boston has been linked to the release of all the criminals they put away years ago when they cleaned up the city. The recidivism rate for criminals in the US is 60%. Put large amounts of criminals away, crime rate goes down - release a large amount of criminals from prison, crime rate goes up. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Bradylama]

Could be. Do all municipal areas take up the tough on crime torch at relatively same times? I doubt it, though the prison system by and large is ultimately ineffective when it comes to preventing crime as a general rule.

Welsh's abortion hypothesis is also interesting, but without any real abortion statistics on hand to study, it's hard to draw any real conclusions. I'm certain, though, that 15 years down the line, we can expect a violent spike in the crime rate of Mississippi.

Desensitizing people to violence doesn't eliminate moralistic impressioning. Just because an impressionable young lad such as myself is maybe more likely to carry out the actions involved in killing another human being doesn't mean that at the core of my reasoning, I understand that what I'm doing is wrong. Murder is quite often an act of premeditation, and no amount of conditioning regarding imagery is going to change the mind of someone commited to the act. I'm pretty convinced, though, that you'd have to be one ignorant motherfucker in this day and age not to realize that it's a bad idea to kill somebody because they're not wearing the right colors, or because they're "dissin" on some cats. I doubt that's the motive, but then again we've always had shitty parents. How do we prevent that?

 

[John Uskglass]

some cats

Some 'cats'? What kind of cats are they? Tabby cats? Those tabbies can be real bitches. I bet they are Siamese cats though. Those ones are the worst.

With all the work that's been done regarding violence in the media I think an argument could be drawn up for it, though. You can't go anywhere or do anything w/o hearing/seeing something about what's going on "down range", and quite a bit of it is accompanied by some pretty graphic footage.

People are more then the sum of their media input, surely?

my definition of a fascist is anyone to the left of Trotsky

Hope you are not serious.

 

[Duckman]

Gangster rap is dead though. How could it have a negative influence?

It was killed by those knobs with them guns

 

[SuAside]

all the money syphoned away from the normal day to day lawenforcement to the war on terror probably didnt help much either...

 

[zioburosky13]

I only believe 'poverty cause crime'. Man will do anything to fullfill their needs. Given that ever since Bush was elected, the economy of USA is getting a hit ever since.

 

[Montez]

Could be. Do all municipal areas take up the tough on crime torch at relatively same times?

You're right of course, but I was also trying to get across that "Murder is on the rise!" is alarmist. Murder and violent crime have always been around, and there's always going to be an ebb and flow as law enforcement ramps ups its efforts due to rising crime rates, then eases off due to lowering crime rates. Add to that the fact that 6 out of 10 prisoners are going to return to their former behavior upon release and I think that pretty neatly explains "Murder on the rise!"

Now as soon as the murder/violent crime rate drops, people will forget about it, cut funding from law enforcement, grumble about what a waste of money the prison system is, and 5 years later we're going to be seeing the same exact thing. "Most murders in a decade!!!!! OMG, how can this be, where are these criminals coming from!? What is causing this!?! Didn't we solve this problem!?!"

Welsh's abortion hypothesis is also interesting, but without any real abortion statistics on hand to study, it's hard to draw any real conclusions.

I believe it's from Freakanomics. I still haven't gotten around to reading it so I can't comment on what research was done, but they probably gathered enough data to make a connection.