Violent crime on the rise, FBI says

[KeithPA]

WASHINGTON - Murders and robberies continued to rise across the country during the first six months of 2006, preliminary FBI data released Monday show, indicating that the lull in crime between 2001 and 2004 appears to be over.

Violent crime figures are on pace for a second straight annual increase. Based on statistics for all of 2005, violent crime rose 2.2 percent nationally - the first increase since 2001.

"This is a concern we've been focused on," said Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel for the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents an estimated 20,000 law enforcement officials and has been pushing for more crime-fighting funding. "A lot of (police) agencies are really stretched thin when it comes to the budget and their ability to aggressively combat crime."

From megapolises to small cities, violent crime rose 3.7 percent between January and June compared to the first six months of 2005. Twenty-eight more people were murdered during that period 2006 in New York City, for example, while the college town Norman, Okla., saw its total number of homicides jump from zero to three.

The early data show:

Murders rose by 1.4 percent, felony assaults by 1.2 percent and robberies by a whopping 9.7 percent in 2006, compared to the first six months of 2005. The number of rapes decreased by less than one-tenth of 1 percent.

Burglaries increased by 1.2 percent. But car thefts dropped by 2.3 percent and other stealing incidents by 3.8 percent.

Arsons rose by 6.8 percent.

The FBI's twice-yearly report comes as the Justice Department studies 18 cities and suburban regions for clues on why the national violent crime rate is increasing. Justice researchers have not yet visited all of the cities, and it is not clear whether the government will make more federal funding available to the worst-hit.

The Bush administration has asked for $1.2 billion in crime-fighting grants and assistance programs this year - what Voegtlin described as at least a $1 billion hit from funding levels a decade ago.

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs....WS01/612190385

More money going to "terrorism" defense means cut in LEOs. On a subnote the murder rate in NYC rose this year as crime fell. Assume Bloomberg will call for more gun control.

[MiniDevil]

Good post.

Here's a pretty well written article. Check it out.

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/the_dead_of_night/

[whoshisface]

Before anyone here starts spreading this fire.

A 2.2% increase in anything with a base size of 350 million people that affects such a small amount say 14,000 homicides goes to 14,280 iis completely insignificant. let only 1.3% I'm a stats guy I do it for a living and have done it for 8 years. This rise over a 5 year span doesn't mean squat. you have the same probability of it being 2.2% lower next year.

This is just hype.

Look at these graphs you'll understand how insignificant it is

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/...nonfatalno.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vage.htm

Bad
1993 1,054,820
1994 1,060,800
1995 902,680
1996 845,220
1997 680,900
1998 557,200
avr 850,270
Much Better
2000 428,670
2001 467,880
2002 353,880
2003 366,840
2004 280,890
2005 419,640 <-- while this is a dramtic rise it still is 1/2 of the 90's figures and in reality when looking at the 6 year trend is about

avr 386,300

So we're still in the same low crime trend.

[whoshisface]

Last year they boosted how the rates fell 3.6%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...tm?POE=NEWISVA

Posted 6/6/2005 11:40 PM Updated 6/7/2005 6:09 AM


Murder, violence rates fall, FBI says
By Toni Locy, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — After rising for three years, the nation's murder rate dropped 3.6% last year, according to preliminary figures released Monday by the FBI. The nation's largest cities and rural areas showed the sharpest declines.
Murders dropped 7.1% in cities with populations over 1 million, and 12.2% in towns with 10,000 or fewer people, the FBI said.

"This suggests that something fresh and positive is happening," said David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "That's really striking."

Murder rates across the nation have been slowly climbing since 2000, when the nation's 15,517 murders were the lowest since 1965.

The FBI didn't provide raw numbers Monday with the preliminary data so the total number of killings in 2004 isn't yet known.

But the declining percentages show that the uptick in killings may have been temporary. Contributing heavily to the decline in big city murder rates is Chicago, where 448 people were slain in 2004 compared with 598 in 2003. That's nearly a 25% decrease.

"That's 150 families that didn't have to arrange funerals," said Pat Camden, a spokesman for the Chicago Police Department. The city has been re-focusing its manpower on gangs, guns and drugs, hoping to gather intelligence on non-fatal gang shootings to prevent retaliation, he said.

But it's nearly impossible to know for sure what causes the numbers to decrease — or increase. "I wish we could put our finger on it," Camden said. "We would put it in pill form and sell it."

The sharp decline didn't hold true everywhere. New York had 570 slayings in 2004 and 597 in 2003. Los Angeles had 518 killings in 2004 and 515 in 2003.

Cities with more than 25,000 but fewer than 50,000 people had a 1.7% increase in killings. Slayings also increased 2.2% in metropolitan counties but dropped 3.1% in non-metropolitan areas, according to the FBI figures.

The USA's violent crime rate also fell 1.7% in 2004 compared with 2003. Cities with 250,000 to 499,999 people experienced a 1.3% increase in violent crime. Violent crime includes murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

The FBI data came from 12,715 law enforcement agencies that submitted information to the bureau's Uniform Crime Reporting program. The final figures will be released in the fall.

For rural areas, "The bad news doesn't seem to be continuing," Kennedy said, referring to recent upturns in violent crime in smaller communities. He also said that the drop in killings nationwide is surprising, considering a national resurgence in gang violence and the emergence of new drug markets for methamphetamine and prescription drugs in small cities.

Lawrence Sherman, director of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania, said the nation's murder rate is an important tool in assessing the scope of crime.

"Murder is the clearest signal in any set of crime data, and this is a very clear signal: it's broken the upward climb of the last three years," Sherman said.

Murder decreased in three of the nation's four regions tracked in FBI statistics. The South had a 5.5% drop; the Midwest, 4.8%; and the Northeast, 3.1%. Murder was up 0.4% in the West.

Violent crime also fell in the South, Midwest, Northeast and West. The Northeast had the greatest decline at 2.6%.

[SGTUSArmy]

There are some things in those articles that were not addressed. Every city mentioned is not legal gun-friendly.

In DeltaII5's post, it mentions Norman, OK. What it does not mention is how those homicides were perpetrated. Were they vehicular, using explosives, slitting the throat, or someone got pushed off a roof? That's why statistics are just that, statistics. Using any manner of calculations, you can manipulate statistics to be what you want.

While yes, a lot of places have gotten more dangerous, look at what is common among those places. Baltimore and Washington, DC--both are cities with rich history. Both are not gun-friendly. Both are on the I-95 corridor. Philly and New York City--Both are way far north. Both are not gun-friendly (from what I have seen on here, Never been there myself).

I am going to pull something else out, and I am going to get flamed, but all 4 of those cities have something else in common, along with Detroit, Los Angeles, St Louis, Raleigh, Atlanta, Chicago, and Dallas. They are centers for the ACLU and NAACP. There is a large portion of the African American Populations living in those cities, and most in tightly nit communities. Those communities are bordered by communities of other heritage, such as Hispanic and Asian. It is a matter of "self-segregation" getting into the mix and causing issues. They want to be with people of similiar descent, background, experiences, and when someone who is different comes into play, they don't take lightly. It happens with those of a caucasian descent as well. Look at Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, in the 1800s, early 1900s and still today. The KKK is still very active.

Another issue, in that article posted by MiniDevil, is that LE Organizations are scared of perceptions. If it is perceived they are targeting a group of a particular ethnic group, they are going to be sued.

I hate to say it, but the NAACP and ACLU are a part of the problem. IMPHO. Look at how many times they jump up and down, but when the truth comes out, they just be quiet and back up. If you ever ask questions, you are told some far fetched story. Has anyone heard anything else about the 92 yr old woman?

I hate to say it, and I will be ridiculed, but race plays a bigger role in the world than we want to think. As much positive ground as has been gained in the past 50 yrs, we are no different as a society than we were in the 1950s. (my 2 cents, and the way I feel.)

[GeorgeF]

I hate to say it, and I will be ridiculed, but race plays a bigger role in the world than we want to think. As much positive ground as has been gained in the past 50 yrs, we are no different as a society than we were in the 1950s. (my 2 cents, and the way I feel.)

How can you say such hateful things!!!

Just kidding. Its amazing to me how pundits point to the USA and compare us to other countries. They claim that firearms MUST be the reason that our crime is higher per capita than countries such as Germany or Japan. Notice how France and UK are being left off those lists more and more. What people (liberals) HATE and REFUSE to admit is that a non-homogenous culture is more prone to bias. There will be some who have and other who do not. There will be bias based on color of skin/education/religion etc....

Now that UK and France have more issues with immigrants, there are subsets of the population who feel disenfranchised or those who are just plain ignorant. Economics is the only real solution to these problems. Liberals would like to believe that you can legislate behavior (hate crimes, welfare, etc...) but in reality the only way you get people to play nice is to give them a meaningful existence - and that is INCOME plain and simple. Give people a steady income, give them creature comforts and safe surroundings and they are far less likely to look for trouble.

The current welfare state encourages single parent families. Single parent families with low income means parent has to work and not influence child (falling in with wrong crowd) or parnt stays home collecting welfare and shows child that no reason to work, government will provide for you. They then get angry because their level of comfort doesnt match what they see portrayed on TV (everyone has all they need and no one has to scrimp - All in the Family, Good Times, Honeymooners - all showed realistic working class families, whether you like the messages or not).

Police presence is also a must - we should pay more for safe streets (and I HATE taxes) but lets face facts that we have less police presence today than we did in 70's with tens of millions FEWER people. More population and less police? How does that make sense? Police present everyday, people trust them more, more likely to talk to them than adopt the 'no snitching' attitude.

And let not forget right to carry. All of these positive factors along with an armed populace means that you will have a safer society. You dont coddle the immigrants - encourage AMERICAN-ness. A nation of disparate cultures and goals is no nation at all. Its a group of people who dont have a good enough reason to go their own way - yet. Look to the Austro-Hungarian empire and see how that worked.

[KeithPA]

What I'm more trying to say is...... I've seen several articles / news reports that have been saying that funding for police has been cut, because they need to put the money to fund the FBIs fight on "terrorism." Therefore there are less cops on the street. Last year even our small town I know cut 10 city cops if I recall correctly.

Alot of people are realizing that in the attempt to prevent "terrorism" we're forgetting about the other criminals in our country. And our favorite war, the war on drugs.

[SGTUSArmy]

What I'm more trying to say is...... I've seen several articles / news reports that have been saying that funding for police has been cut, because they need to put the money to fund the FBIs fight on "terrorism." Therefore there are less cops on the street. Last year even our small town I know cut 10 city cops if I recall correctly.

Alot of people are realizing that in the attempt to prevent "terrorism" we're forgetting about the other criminals in our country. And our favorite war, the war on drugs.

You didn't say that Delta. It is mentioned as a biline in the article.

[KeithPA]

Sorry forgot to add the funding cuts part....

As Violent Crimes Rise, Law Enforcement Officials Battle $1.1 Billion Funding Cut

In his fiscal 2007 budget, Bush asked for $19.5 billion for Justice Department discretionary spending, an 8 percent decrease from fiscal 2006. About $1.1 billion of the cuts would come from funds for grants to state and local law enforcement.

[SGTUSArmy]

Ok, so without federal government help, podunk Alabama can't enforce the laws effectively?