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.
New York City had a fairly good year for homicides by historical standards, finishing with a preliminary count of 516 - up from 496 in 2007, but still well below the 2,245 homicides reported in 1990. For a city population of slightly under 8.3 million, that gives us a rate of 6.24 homicides per 100,000 people.
While that is above the national average of 5.6, it is quite low by the standards of most large American cities. Chicago's rate for 2008 was nearly 18 per 100,000, Omaha's rate was 10.35, Los Angeles was at 9.3, and New Orleans had at least an astonishing 54.2, or even higher depending on the population figures used.
So, by its homicide rate, New York City is considered a great American success story.
Police in London, UK recently released their figures for homicides in that city's 33 administrative districts (called 'Greater London,' population 7,855,600) for the period from November 2007 to November 2008. There were a total of 153 homicides recorded. That gives a rate of 1.95 - 3.2 times lower than New York City.
When NYC's homicide rate fell in the 1990's, it fell dramatically from the high 20's, down into the teens, then came to rest in the 6/7 range around 1999, where it has remained since. It did not continue falling into London-style numbers.
Is that because New York City is simply structurally more violent than London, and has a higher "base rate" of murder that will probably happen regardless of other changes made in policing? Is it because London police are simply better at preventing murders than their NYC counterparts? Is it "society"?
And if so, should we simply be satisfied with a city murder rate in the 6/7 range, and accept that we can't do any better, and therefore shouldn't expend ever more resources for marginal gains? Should we leave the really low murder rates to the other developed countries, and be happy with what we have?
Considering it's NY, I'd say those are acceptable figures.
Also, if my friend from England tells me correctly, guns are illegal in London. If so, killing takes 3.5 times longer and that technically makes those stats equal.
Last edited by BLAZER PROPHET; 01-11-2009 at 06:44 PM..
Reason: badd speling
Probably that famous "British reserve" in action. Shooting others in Great Britain is considered unforgivably vulgar. It's 'in-your-face', it's totally 'unseemly', and a GROSS breach of etiquette..
Americans are less likely to be so hung up on formalities, and will shoot with less provocation.
Also, practically half of London has cameras installed in every corner, and this is bad for privacy but good for keeping crime down. This is particularly true of high traffic areas such as the tube, bus stops, tourist attractions, etc.
Also, practically half of London has cameras installed in every corner, and this is bad for privacy but good for keeping crime down. This is particularly true of high traffic areas such as the tube, bus stops, tourist attractions, etc.
My guess is that ACLU would be ok with it as long as the cameras are not peeking inside the buildings. I think people here would be more spooked than ACLU. Personally, in hi traffic areas, I think this is a good idea - it reduces patrolling costs and makes prosecutions easier.
The cameras in the U.K. have been found to have little effect on crime. No thanks, I'll pass on Orwell. But NYC isn't too far behind the U.K. as far as a police/nanny state goes, and it still has the high crime.
My guess is that ACLU would be ok with it as long as the cameras are not peeking inside the buildings. I think people here would be more spooked than ACLU. Personally, in hi traffic areas, I think this is a good idea - it reduces patrolling costs and makes prosecutions easier.
"Don’t sacrifice privacy--and public funds—for misguided video surveillance programs. Let your city council know that this invasion of privacy is not the answer to fighting crime."
The cameras in the U.K. have been found to have little effect on crime. No thanks, I'll pass on Orwell. But NYC isn't too far behind the U.K. as far as a police/nanny state goes, and it still has the high crime.
I would think they would have little effect on stopping crime, but a good effect on catching criminals. And that could have a small effect on detering crime when some of the criminals are in jail or on probation and not wanting to go to jail.
"Don’t sacrifice privacy--and public funds—for misguided video surveillance programs. Let your city council know that this invasion of privacy is not the answer to fighting crime."
I would have thought there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. Then again, I am not a lawyer.
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.
