[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by CTartist

I was thinking about this thread and the makeup of Connecticut cities. Like Jay always points out our cities tend to be very small and dense with low populations compared to cities in other states. Most of the 1st ring suburbs of our cities would most likely be the equivalent of cities in other states. So I looked up the crime statistics in another way. Violent crime PER CAPITA in each state.

"To determine the most dangerous states in America, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the number of violent crimes reported in 2018 per 100,000 residents* for all 50 states with data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Violent crime is a broad designation that is made up of rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and murder.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...-rate/40968963

*Per Capita

These are the ten SAFEST states with 1 being the safest in the nation.
1 Maine
2 Vermont
3 New Hampshire
4 Virginia (I am surprised....good for Virginia)
5 Connecticut
6 New Jersey
7 Kentucky
8 Wyoming
9 Rhode Island
10 Minnesota

I would rather pay a little more in taxes and be safer in a Connecticut suburb.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again - you can’t use crime stats to compare states. Each state classifies crimes differently.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again - you can’t use crime stats to compare states. Each state classifies crimes differently.

Plus crime is localized. You can't really look at crime at the state level. It doesn't tell you much.

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again - you can’t use crime stats to compare states. Each state classifies crimes differently.

This is for VIOLENT crime.

I don't think you can classify murder and rape in a different way.......just saying. I also don't think you can "bury" violent crime of murder and rape in a lessor crime category.

[mdovell]

I know of some places with gang activity. Not sure if you heard this but not all gangs get along with each other regardless of where they are. So if that contributes to figures is that more indictive on location or just because the gangs are there?

Another factor in this is academia. Not all institutions release information timely or accurately. Boston for example has seen decrease in crime for decades...except sexual ones which mostly are on college campuses. How much sway does a local government have in academia with this?

Then factor in other areas that might not be 100% under local and state scrutiny like military bases and tribal lands. Of course there's also large private companies that might want to hush things up if it happened on their property. The other part on crime is you have to think to where it occurred, where the assailant came from and the victim. I lived in a small town where a couple got divorced. He hired a hitman from I think bridgeport to come down. He popped shots but didn't hit anyone or anything and was caught. It was easily one of the most violent events in town for years if not 15 years prior.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by CTartist

This is for VIOLENT crime.
I don't think you can classify murder and rape in a different way

Great retort. Brav!

Thank you
Wow! What an achievement. Denser than dense CT cracking the top 5 for safest state from violent crimes. That's pretty damn impressive considering some of the other top states may have a higher bear population than human. Fewer people, fewer crime.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by CTartist

This is for VIOLENT crime.

I don't think you can classify murder and rape in a different way.......just saying. I also don't think you can "bury" violent crime of murder and rape in a lessor crime category.

This shows you don’t really know how crime is classified and reported. Each state has different elements of each crime that must be met before an arrest can be made, or it won’t be reported to UCR. What may meet the criteria for a robbery in TX won’t in CA. What would be a sexual assault or rape in CA, may not be so in MA. Even murder has differing elements between states.

This is why you cannot accurately compare crime rates between states. It just cannot be done.

Originally Posted by SteveM85

Wow! What an achievement. Denser than dense CT cracking the top 5 for safest state from violent crimes. That's pretty damn impressive considering some of the other top states may have a higher bear population than human. Fewer people, fewer crime.

“Fewer people, fewer crime” doesn’t apply to crime statistics, which are reported per capita.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

This shows you don’t really know how crime is classified and reported. Each state has different elements of each crime that must be met before an arrest can be made, or it won’t be reported to UCR. What may meet the criteria for a robbery in TX won’t in CA. What would be a sexual assault or rape in CA, may not be so in MA. Even murder has differing elements between states.

This is why you cannot accurately compare crime rates between states. It just cannot be done.



“Fewer people, fewer crime” doesn’t apply to crime statistics, which are reported per capita.

I'm not going to debate a possible G-Man on crime stats and how states report them. I'd get run over like an endzone pylon.
Regardless, some of those states in Artist's top ten have large swaths of rural and even wilderness. CT with 3M+ on a postage stamp is pretty damn good for low violent crime rates. I couldn't feel any safer in the Stub. It's great.

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

This shows you don’t really know how crime is classified and reported. Each state has different elements of each crime that must be met before an arrest can be made, or it won’t be reported to UCR. What may meet the criteria for a robbery in TX won’t in CA. What would be a sexual assault or rape in CA, may not be so in MA. Even murder has differing elements between states.

I have a Missouri soul so I say show me and prove your premise.

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

“Fewer people, fewer crime” doesn’t apply to crime statistics, which are reported per capita.

My stats and info that I always put up (in links) with my posts are per capita

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by CTartist

I have a Missouri soul so I say show me and prove your premise.

I’m not sure what you’d like proven. It’s pretty widely known that the classification of crimes (elements and whether the elements mean its a misdemeanor or a felony) differs between states. Each state’s criminal elements can be found online. I encourage you to read them.

This is why even the most basic comparisons (for example, index crime comparisons) are less than accurate. The most accurate comparisons come within a state (town vs town), since all are bound by the same legal guidelines, and not state by state, which are not (aside from US caselaw).

Originally Posted by CTartist

I My stats and info that I always put up (in links) with my posts are per capita

I’m aware - my response was to SteveM, who insinuated using whole numbers was preferable over per capita.

[Stepfordct]

Kinda like what's the difference between peaceful protesting and rioting!?