I have blogged repeatedly about the propensity of the media to distort official crime reports to make it appear as if things are getting inexorably worse. (You can see past examples here, here, and here.) Crime has more or less been treading water in the United States over the last few years, although you would never know it from the media.
About six months ago, I took a quick look at the data and saw that 2007 homicide rates were going to be way down in large U.S. cities. The major newspapers are finally starting to report these encouraging numbers, as Alexander Belenky‘s interesting blog at the U.K. Guardian points out.
Last month, Al Baker at the Times noted that homicide is down, and that only 35 of the city’s homicides were committed by strangers. Meanwhile, Chicago’s murder rate is down 7 percent.
But here is my favorite:
Two weeks ago, I blogged about an article bemoaning the L.A. gang problem. I noted in my blog post that it didn’t sound right to me that gang problems were worse than ever in L.A. This conclusion was merely informed speculation on my part.
Last week, that speculation was confirmed when the Los Angeles Daily News reported that L.A. is on track to have its lowest homicide rate since 1970, with the greatest declines occurring in gang-related murders.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
By reading the NY Times and it’s editorials you’d think that criminals everywhere have scary guns and you aren’t safe anywhere in the wholesale slaughter across the nation.
Glad to see some mainstream reporters have kept their heads about this and put together cogent articles about crime.
By reading the NY Times and it’s editorials you’d think that criminals everywhere have scary guns and you aren’t safe anywhere in the wholesale slaughter across the nation.
Glad to see some mainstream reporters have kept their heads about this and put together cogent articles about crime.
I’m always skeptical of claims that X% of murders are committed by acquaintances vs. strangers, considering the large Y% of murders that go unsolved. Doesn’t it seem likely that murders committed by strangers are more likely to remain unsolved? I would think that if I were to randomly shoot a stranger in the street one night, it would be unlikely that the cops would come knocking on my door asking questions. Why would they? But if my wife were to get shot, I’d be the first person they talked to.
I’m always skeptical of claims that X% of murders are committed by acquaintances vs. strangers, considering the large Y% of murders that go unsolved. Doesn’t it seem likely that murders committed by strangers are more likely to remain unsolved? I would think that if I were to randomly shoot a stranger in the street one night, it would be unlikely that the cops would come knocking on my door asking questions. Why would they? But if my wife were to get shot, I’d be the first person they talked to.
oddTodd,
I wonder what is the definition of “solved”. Does that mean the suspect was prosecuted? Does it mean the suspect was convicted? Perhaps there are a lot of unsolved crimes where suspects could not be charged for lack of evidence or could not be convicted in court. In this case stranger vs. aquaintance doesn’t seem to have much relevence.
Also, murder by stranger is not the same as murder by non-relative.
oddTodd,
I wonder what is the definition of “solved”. Does that mean the suspect was prosecuted? Does it mean the suspect was convicted? Perhaps there are a lot of unsolved crimes where suspects could not be charged for lack of evidence or could not be convicted in court. In this case stranger vs. aquaintance doesn’t seem to have much relevence.
Also, murder by stranger is not the same as murder by non-relative.
oddTodd -
Yes, the majority of “random” (in other words, commited by a stranger) homicides go unsolved. Indeed, much (possibly a majority) of drug/gang violence goes unsolved as well, due to the fact that no one involved (as well as many witnesses) will talk to the police, or cares about the victim. A really great book that provides a ton of insight to this is “Homecide: A Year on the Killing Streets of Baltimore” (I beleive I am remembering the title correctly, it is a rather famous book that inspired the TV series “Homicide”, where the Det. Munch character [now on Law & Order: SVU] originated, little tidbit of trivia).
In a nutshell, the killer is either the spouse/lover/boyfriend/girlfriend, close family member, or co-worker, or the case will go unsolved except for a lucky break, such as fingerprints/DNA from someone already on file.
J.Ja
oddTodd -
Yes, the majority of “random” (in other words, commited by a stranger) homicides go unsolved. Indeed, much (possibly a majority) of drug/gang violence goes unsolved as well, due to the fact that no one involved (as well as many witnesses) will talk to the police, or cares about the victim. A really great book that provides a ton of insight to this is “Homecide: A Year on the Killing Streets of Baltimore” (I beleive I am remembering the title correctly, it is a rather famous book that inspired the TV series “Homicide”, where the Det. Munch character [now on Law & Order: SVU] originated, little tidbit of trivia).
In a nutshell, the killer is either the spouse/lover/boyfriend/girlfriend, close family member, or co-worker, or the case will go unsolved except for a lucky break, such as fingerprints/DNA from someone already on file.
J.Ja