Feb-12-2009 10:47 AM
There was a steady increase in violent crime in the United States in
2005 and 2006. Analysts were worried. Along with the flow of convicts
leaving state and federal prisons each year, government analysts and
law enforcement officials warned that the US may be headed in reverse:
back to the crime wave of the late 80s and early 90s. The likelihood of
committing violent crimes and becoming a criminal depends on several
demographic characteristics. The location of the population is an
important one, and as we can see from the 2007 statistics, some cities
are rising in crime, while some cities are seeing a decline in the
crime rate. According to governmental research, men, the young,
minorities and people in less favorable circumstances are more likely
to commit crime, as well as be victimized by crime. It is most common,
furthermore, for crime to follow those in economically disadvantaged
areas, and it is those regions which are seeing their crime rates rise
immensely, while more gentrified areas experience a drop in crime.
And yet there is one complex problem that analysts have to face-figuring out why big city crime is on the decline. Some criminologists note that major cities have more highly sophisticated resources. The policing methods in smaller cities just can't compare to the smaller amount of financial, technological and personnel resources in larger cities. And the drop in big city crime has a tremendous affect on polling the national average.
The June 2008 release of preliminary crime statistics for last year demonstrates a definitive drop in violent crime in the US. A 1.4 percent drop in violent crime, to be exact. The minor but noticeable rise in crime during 2005 and 2006 (2.3 percent and 1.9 percent) now appear to be expected fluctuations from the historically low US crime rate of 2000.
The situation is even more complex. The ease of saying that crimes patterns have decreased nationwide masks a more subtle and complex reality. There are, for instance, highly complicated fluctuations between major cities and rural areas. There is a great difference between regions-the Northeast and the South, for example.
One can look at the drop in homicide. The national drop in homicide was 2.7 percent, and yet most of that decrease came from major cities like New York and Los Angeles. (down 20 percent, to 496 homicides) and Los Angeles (down 19 percent, to 380 homicides). According to the Police Executive Research Forum, New York City homicide was down 20 percent (to 496 homicides) and Los Angeles homicide was down 19 percent (to 380 homicides). Categorically, murder rates in cities with populations over 1 million dropped 9.8 percent. This contrasted with what was going on in medium-sized cities (100,000 to 249,999), where murder rates were on the rise at 1.9 percent. That is a stark contrast to medium-size cities. Smaller cities (50,000 to 99,999 residents) saw a definite increase. Their murder rates were rising at 3.7 percent.
Wider safer regions also help dictate the national average. Northeastern cities represent a huge drop in the national crime. The crimes of the Northeastern cities have in fact dropped 5.4 percent. New York, Boston and Philadelphia all saw declines in their murder rates. But cities like Newark, N.J. and Pittsburgh didn't budge, and in fact saw increases. All this raises the oft-mentioned question of how polls are conceived. What exactly do our government officials mean when they say that the national crime average is decreasing? Are some cities being ghettoized and ignored while bigger populations are seeing improvements?
Violent crime in the South was on the upswing, particularly in New Orleans and Atlanta. In fact, New Orleans violent crime has risen, at 29 percent and 209 homicides. In Atlanta, there's been a rise at 17 percent. In both situations, local factors helped determine the rise. New Orleans violent crime was obviously affected by the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, which toppled the city and it's security systems. Atlanta also has been heavily afflicted by gang activity and a surge in narcotics units.
The radical distinction between metropolitan areas is so significant the Police Executive Research Forum reports that the number of cities seeing a decrease in homicides is almost the same as the number of cities seeing a decrease.
Yet unlike the late 80s and early '90s, where the crack epidemic sent an across-the-board surge in national crime rates, there isn't a consistent national trend here. As has been reported in the Police Executive Research Forum poll, some cities go up one year, then down the next year; some cities stay the same.
But given the current recession, a rising unemployment rate, rising food and gas prices and severe problems with housing, the nation can expect to see an across-the-board upswing, analysts say. Even though predicting crime rates can be a futile endeavor, some believe that crime is more dictated by local conditions and national conditions. Unfortunately, right now, national and international conditions seem to be having a severe affect on elements at the local level.
Brought to you by Crime-USA "Where America gets its crime". An information website offering crime statistics, information and provocative crime, safety and security related information.