Violent Crimes Up 18% In 2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fred Fuller

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
21,215
Location
AL, NC
This story represents a pretty remarkable turnaround, and one we should all note carefully and apply as many preventive/protective measures as possible to our own daily activities.
==================

http://www.newswest9.com/story/19842518/government-violent-crimes-rose-18-percent-in-2011

Posted: Oct 17, 2012 9:51 AM EDT
Updated: Oct 17, 2012 10:51 AM EDT
By PETE YOST
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The number of violent crimes rose by 18 percent in the United States last year while property crimes went up by 11 percent, the government reported Wednesday.

It was the first year-to-year increase for violent crime since 1993, marking the end of a long string of declines. Violent crime fell by 65 percent since 1993, from 16.8 million to 5.8 million last year.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics' annual national crime victimization survey, the size of the percentage increases in both violent crime and property crime for last year was driven in large part by the historically low levels seen in 2010.

The increase in violent crime was the result of an upward swing in assaults, which moved up by 22 percent, from 4 million in 2010 to 5 million last year. The increases in violent crime experienced by whites, Hispanics, younger people and men accounted for the majority of the increase in violent crime.

In the latest survey, property crime was up for the first time in a decade, from 15.4 million in 2010 to 17 million last year. Household burglaries rose 14 percent, from 3.2 million to 3.6 million. The number of thefts jumped by 10 percent, from 11.6 million to 12.8 million.

The victimization figures are based on surveys by the Census Bureau of a large sample of people in order to gather data from those who are victims of crime. They are considered the government's most comprehensive crime statistics because they count both crimes that never are reported to the police as well as those reported.

Last May, the FBI's preliminary crime report for 2011, which counts only crimes reported to police, concluded that crime dropped again last year, down 4 percent for violent crime and 3.7 percent for property crime. The declines slowed in the second half of last year, a sign to academic experts that the many years of lowering crime levels might be nearing an end. Historically, less than half of all crimes, including violent crimes, are reported to police.
 
Skeptical cynicism here. Are they cooking the books for their own purposes? Justice dept doesnt much credibility these days
 
In regards to property crime it is my understanding that cyber crime is more than half of the property crime. As for violent crime I agree that the economy may have something to do with it.


Sent by someone using something.
 
Skeptical cynicism here. Are they cooking the books for their own purposes? Justice dept doesnt much credibility these days
Click to expand...

Skeptical cynicism aka conspiracy theory? To what end would cooking the numbers serve a purpose?

Let's see, saying that crime is worse will have the negative impact of making it look like the JD and the Obama administration aren't doing very well. After all, look at the timing of the announcement. So it must be right wing book cooking. Then again, elevated crime rate, especially violent crime, means the whole 'more guns less crime' thing really is as hokey as it sounds and so this must be left wing book cooking to strive for more gun control. After all, a bazillion guns have poured into American society since just prior to Obama taking office and so crime, especially violent crime should be just about gone by now. Heck, gun makers can't keep up with the current demand, LOL, yet violent crime is up.

Or maybe, just maybe, crime really is up. Maybe it is due to the recession, unemployment, and other economic factors stressing society that is the driving force behind the problem.
 
This story represents a pretty remarkable turnaround, and one we should all note carefully and apply as many preventive/protective measures as possible to our own daily activities.
Click to expand...

I've said it before, the likelihood of being attacked has very little to do with the preparation needed if you are attacked. Crime being up 18% doesn't change how we need to prepare.

There was a point in the OP and a point in a reply I'd like to highlight:
1) Low numbers last year help result in the "increase" this year. I'm curious to see the 2009 numbers compared to 2010 and 2011.
2) We are in a recession. The worse our country does in terms of education and economy, the higher these numbers are likely to be.
 
I've said repeatedly - it's the stakes that matter where violent crime is concerned, more so than the odds. Increases YOY (year over year) in violent crime rates are not a good sign, and it will be interesting to see if the increases continue next year.

I would have anticipated increases in property crime to outpace increases in violent crime ... http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4494
 
To add on to Skribs if I may, an increase if crime should not change how you prepare, but it should change if you prepare, if you don't. Training is something everyone should do, whether they live in the most crime-free small farming town in the US or off 8-mile in Detroit. You can either operate your firearm correctly, safely, and tactically in a self defense scenario, or you cant'. But too many people fall into the "can't" group. We but a gun, a box of the most expensive self defense rounds the gun store talks us into, and we maybe spend a day or two on the range because of the "new gadget" feel most people get when they buy something new and exciting. And the the gun sits on the top shelf in your closet, or even just in your holster. But even if you're one of the statistically few gun owners who actually carries, that isn't enough. Buying a guitar doesn't make you a musician. Carrying it around doesn't either. Learning to play does. It's the same for guns or any other tool. Learn to use it. The existance of a gun in your home or even on your belt is just not good enough.

And if you coasted by before thinking "well, it won't happen to me. I'll get to the range sometime when I'm not busy. I think I'm a pretty good shot already. How hard can it really be?", this increase in crime should light a fire under your hindquarters.
 
I spoke with an LEO with crime reporting responsibilities and he said there are new standards for how crime is reported. This caused under reporting last year.

He also said that funding support has dried up. So participation in crime reporting has dropped over the last several years.

In other words, crime reporting is like comparing apples to oranges when using the data and comparing it to anything else.

It is what it is, and its not particularly accurate.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
 
Crime reporting data is bound to be skewed over the next decade or so as states move from traditional UCR reporting to NIBRS reporting. Basically under UCR (Uniform Crime Report) run by the FBI shared with DOJ if someone breaks into a home with intent to rob the place and kills an occupant, the crime gets reported to the FBI as a murder, not as a home invasion/burglary etc.

Under NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System) the same situation would be reported under murder and burglary as well as weapons used by the offender. This will make crime LOOK like it is increasing but the reporting system is becoming more inclusive.

This won't account for all increase just a little.
 
Actually, the UCR to NIBRS migration took place in the early 90's. I was personally involved in the transition for all Police Agencies in New Hampshire.



Sent by someone using something.
 
It's easy to use statistical data to tell whatever story one wants to tell and make it seem real. It doesn't matter what data gathering methodology is employed, or by whom. Once the figures are in hand, a skilled statistician can easily manipulate them to create truth for the audience in mind by selectively excluding data that don't fit, weighting data that do fit, etc.

One thing that will always be true, in any society, is that people need what they need. In modern American society, however, people need what they want--and they want it now! The shrinking distinction between the two, driven by both commercial and government entities, drives people to take whatever measures are required to get what they want because they think they need it, right now. Sometimes those measures are criminal in nature.

But the criminal who's simply acquiring what thinks he needs--in the only way he thinks he can--doesn't necessarily see his act as criminal. He knows he could go to jail for it if he's caught, but he sees that possible outcome as both unlikely and unfair. He believes that circumstance rather than personal choice compelled him to commit crime.

Further, a person who has been taught from childhood that it's not fair for Joe to have more than Bill may use that view to justify committing a criminal act to level the field--as long as he is Bill and not Joe.

Without looking at any empirical data on either side, one could rationally expect that whenever a population experiences chronically high unemployment, inflation, currency devaluation, and general uncertainty regarding the economic conditions in which it finds itself, a rising number of people within that population will become desperate enough to choose crime. Add to that the above concepts that want is the same as need and fair means equal, and you have a recipe for ballooning crime.
 
It's easy to use statistical data to tell whatever story one wants to tell and make it seem real.
Click to expand...

A statement often offered by the group that doesn't like the statistical results, also easily made, usually for the purpose of casting dispersions.

If this line of logic is used, then it should be pointed out that no statistical information is valid, all having been rendered impotent by the statement that none can be trusted.
 
NH was one of the first states to migrate. I did quiet a bit of work on the NIBRS migration in the next door state of VT. Mostly research into how crime reported would have been skewed as part of my undergrad. Some states are still using UCR such as California, New York, New Jersey...in all 19 states are not NIBRS certified.

http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/background-status/nibrs_states.shtml
 
Last edited:
DNS,

It's not the data that can't be trusted. Data is just a collection of raw results. It's the people who analyze it that cause the issues.
 
The UCR and NCVS weren't planned on being long term projects either. Gotta love government inertia.

I rarely read the news agencies when they say this is higher than this in this time frame. So many misinterpretations by the writer, editor, ulterior motives etc. Whenever I can I rather get the data from the source like the reports I have been mentioning or press releases from Federal level agencies. News agencies are about as accurate as Wikipedia to me.
 
DNS,

It's not the data that can't be trusted. Data is just a collection of raw results. It's the people who analyze it that cause the issues.
Click to expand...

What you are suggesting is a cursory dismissal without actual examination and in saying such, dismissing all analyses, not just the ones you don't like. Of course, since you are dismissing the analysis as untrustworthy without looking at the information or methods, you are also dismissing the data as well. If you say statistical data can be made to tell any story you want, and you did say this, then you are saying that the data cannot be trusted it will obviously fit any interpretation.
 
It can only go down for so many years in a row before it has to go up and be higher than the previous year.



My own observations on crime and culture combined with various data shows that gang violence has steadily been decreasing many places for many years. Such violence accounted for most murders and a large amount of violent crime. It peaked in the 90s and has been going down since then.
The effect of this on crime statistics is that since it was the vast majority of violent crime, it shaped the crime statistics so greatly that what was actually happening outside of the gang culture has been drowned out. Ups and downs in the rest of the society has appeared as just a relatively constant decrease in overall statistics.
The gang culture and killings peaked around 1993, when the homicide rate also peaked. It fell back and stabilized for awhile, and then has been going down since in most of the country, though there is various cities that are exceptions.

Most gang related killings involved the deaths of other gang members, drug dealers, etc This means these statistics don't relate to reality for most citizens that don't live a lifestyle that brings them into conflict with other gangs.
While the statistics that are completely drowned out by the dominance of gang related violence could have more relevance.

As a result of things like the homicide, assault, and similar crime statistics not accounting for gang and non gang related, the general trends statistics show have little meaning for your average citizen.
Your risk could for example be actually increasing while statistically it is decreasing because gang violence has for so long dominated the statistics and is decreasing. So because less gang members are killing or assaulting eachother the rate goes down, even if the number of common criminals victimizing regular people is increasing but not at a rate to compensate for the loss in gang violence.
 
Last edited:
Didn't realize that the UCR for 2011 was available yet.
Click to expand...

Usually the UCR is published by spring of the following year.

Is it common for there to be huge changes from the preliminary reports and the final reports? I seemed to remember hearing the preliminary report had a continued trend in the negative direction, and I found these:
Click to expand...

More often than you think. This is why most scholars use complete reports from previous years.

Seems we got a little sidetracked on crime reporting procedures and that was my fault. The differences between UCR/NIBRS/NCVS can only account for a few percent difference of crime rates. Far more likely is something that was already mentioned, the news article cherry picked reports to fit its agenda. I had a law professor say "the wording of the statistics is far more important than the numbers itself. You can reword any statistic to fit your needs." I have seen many newspapers say "violent crime is up nationwide" and all they did was pick crime reports from high crime cities NYC, Chicago, LA and consider that a sample for their "nationwide" claim instead of taking into account population differences, densities etc.
 
Sorry, I reread the article (which has been updated since the OP), and realized that this is not the final UCR numbers, but a survey by a different agency. Final UCR numbers are due the end of this month. Also, this tidbit on the crimes included:

""2011 may be worse than 2010, but it was also the second-best in recent history," said Northeastern University criminology professor James Alan Fox.

"These simple assaults are so low-level in severity that they are not even included in the FBI counts of serious crime," Fox said. FBI crime data only counts aggravated assaults."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
2010 Uniform Crime Report released, Violent Crime down again
Replies
11
Views
457
mortablunt
M
M
  • Locked
Violent crime on the rise in Britain...
Replies
15
Views
952
MicroBalrog
M
M
  • Locked
And we should have more gun control why, again?
Replies
8
Views
661
Missashot
M
U
  • Locked
Study: Since 1991 over 170 million new firearms, crime down 51%
Replies
0
Views
512
usmarine0352_2005
U
P
  • Locked
Violent crime 40 year low?
Replies
1
Views
538
Lennyjoe
Lennyjoe
Back
Top