Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I often post positive things about Seattle and try and dispel some of the negatives I hear which just don't seem accurate to me. However, I also recognize that Seattle is often represented in an overly positive way that also just doesn't reflect reality - the most common being that it's one of the safest cities in America. The fact is, the numbers don't even come close to bearing that out. It's relatively safe, yes, but not anywhere near being one of the safest.
(I'm going to focus on violent crime, but it's worth noting that (in 2014) Seattle had the 4th highest property crime rate in the country - higher than Oakland, Atlanta, etc.)
In terms of violent crime (which includes murder, rape, robbery, and assault), Seattle had a rate of 603 per 100,000 people. That puts it in 41st place out of the 80 cities in the US with more than 250,000 people - squarely in the middle. It has a higher violent crime rate than LA, NYC, Phoenix, Denver, Portland, San Diego, El Paso, and many other cities.
1) Detroit - 1,988
...
3) Oakland - 1,685
...
7) Cleveland - 1,334
...
16) Newark - 1,077
...
31) San Francisco - 795
...
36) Dallas - 664
...
40) Sacramento - 614 41) Seattle - 603
42) Denver - 598
43) New York - 596
...
48) Phoenix - 572
...
51) Columbus - 549
...
54) Los Angeles - 490
...
58) Portland - 472
...
66) El Paso - 393
...
69) San Diego - 380
...
73) San Jose - 321
...
80) Virginia Beach - 146
It's true that Seattle has a fairly low murder rate, which is obviously a very big deal. But when considering all violent crime (which also include aggravated assault, robbery, and rape), it's about middle of the road. And when considering property crime, it's one of the worst. Generally, the city does feel pretty safe, but those who try and claim it's one of the safest cities in the country are just way off-base.
Is this accurate? I though Seattle had one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country?
According to the FBI uniform crime reports it is accurate, and that's exactly my point. Despite what people think, Seattle does not have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country by any stretch - it's about middle of the road. (Although it still does feel pretty safe by American standards)
Is this accurate? I though Seattle had one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country?
Murder rates are pretty low, but everything else is just about right.
Seattle doesn't empower their cops to their jobs and well, the cops don't really bother to do their jobs. "Oh, your car got jacked? Go file a claim with your insurance." (Though I'm still not sure how that's supposed to work without a police report.) There was also a situation where a woman got groped by a guy in DT and when she found and told the cops, they blew her off. So she had to go back, find the guy and take his picture to send a warning to people she knew on FB. It went viral as apparently lots of other ladies been assaulted by the same man. Turns out guy had a record and was on probation... At least, the probation officer ordered his arrest. SPD wasn't thrilled that this woman took matters into her own hands.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,988,805 times
Reputation: 7333
Sigh
Seattle - 608,660 residents
Los Angeles - 3,928,864 residents
FBI crime statistics are calculated by taking how many crimes are committed per 100,000 residents in a given city. This means that for Seattle the number will be higher because the number of crimes are divided by a factor of six while in Los Angeles they are divided by a factor of thirty nine.
If that isn't enough for you to figure out why this ranking in hogwash, here's another explanation:
Seattle - 608,660 residents
Los Angeles - 3,928,864 residents
FBI crime statistics are calculated by taking how many crimes are committed per 100,000 residents in a given city. This means that for Seattle the number will be higher because the number of crimes are divided by a factor of six while in Los Angeles they are divided by a factor of thirty nine.
If that isn't enough for you to figure out why this ranking in hogwash, here's another explanation:
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,988,805 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jhenma
But the whole point of "per capita" is to normalize the numbers to the population.
Yet it doesn't, it just provides a measurable context to the numbers.
For example, using the 2012 data, had an average of 603.1 violent crimes per 100,000 residents while Los Angeles had a rate of 490.7 per 100,000 residents. While on the surface one might say that someoneis more likely to be involved in a violent crime in Seattle, crime often doesn't work that way. Rather, it is usually limited a few specific areas or circumstances.
Given the differences in population size and city area, big cities with small boundaries and populations less than a million usually end up looking "worse" on these rankings than cities with larger populations because there are less people to dilute the number. This is why I look at it this way:
Number of violent crimes in Seattle in 2012: 3618
Number of violent crimes in Los Angeles in 2012: 19110
Yeah, Seattle is "more dangerous" than Los Angeles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
