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.
Interesting stats, but IMO it doesn't mean much in the real world since crime rates are better understood within a more local context than a large entity such as a state.
For example, California's murder rate is around the national average (4.8 vs. 4.7)..it doesn't mean that all areas within the state are going to be the average. There is a WORLD of difference between Richmond, CA (one of the top 10 dangerous places in the US) and Mission Viejo, CA (one of the top 10 safest places in the US)
That sounds reasonable. Another example is Wisconsin. Wisconsin has one of the lowest murder rates in the USA. However, there is some variation. Madison, the capital city and one of America's largest college cities, has a murder rate around 0.8 murders per 100,000. Milwaukee, the largest city in Wisconsin, and one of the poorest cities in the nation, has a murder rate of 15.5 murders per 100,000, the worst in the state.
Absolutely, murder rates vary tremendously city by city. But executions are a state level decision, so it makes sense to consider that on a state level.
The greater poverty in the South undoubtedly contributes to higher murder rates. I would think that greater gun availability would also play a role.
In terms of the death penalty as deterrent--I'll assume that there isn't any clear correlation between the death penalty and murder rate. That makes the point brilliantly. If the death penalty were a deterrent, murder rates would be systematically lower in death penalty states. But they're not.
You can make a kind of moral argument--that regardless of ineffectiveness of deterrence--some people do things so terrible that they should be killed. You can make that moral judgement, but know that Canada, every country in the European Union, many other countries, and even many American states have rejected that notion. To them, the morality runs precisely the other way--moral countries/states don't kill people to prove that killing is wrong. To me the death penalty is the worst kind of public policy--neither effective nor just.
Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Maryland, Arizona, and Tennessee also have the death penalty and they have higher murder rates than the states you have mentioned.
Minnesota, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Maine, Iowa,Vermont,and Rhode Island have among the lowest murder rates in the USA and none of them have the death penalty. New Hampshire hasn't used the death penalty in a very long time.
Which further proves my point that taking one factor and correlating to murder rates is absolutely useless.
Absolutely, murder rates vary tremendously city by city. But executions are a state level decision, so it makes sense to consider that on a state level.
The greater poverty in the South undoubtedly contributes to higher murder rates. I would think that greater gun availability would also play a role.
In terms of the death penalty as deterrent--I'll assume that there isn't any clear correlation between the death penalty and murder rate. That makes the point brilliantly. If the death penalty were a deterrent, murder rates would be systematically lower in death penalty states. But they're not.
You can make a kind of moral argument--that regardless of ineffectiveness of deterrence--some people do things so terrible that they should be killed. You can make that moral judgement, but know that Canada, every country in the European Union, many other countries, and even many American states have rejected that notion. To them, the morality runs precisely the other way--moral countries/states don't kill people to prove that killing is wrong. To me the death penalty is the worst kind of public policy--neither effective nor just.
Indeed. The death penalty won't deter people from committing murder. Like you said before, if it did work, it would be uniformly lower in the states with the death penalty. Proof of that is this: The Deep South has the death penalty, and as a region, it has the highest murder rate in the USA. I will do more research on regional murder rates.
Canada has a lower murder rate than the USA, without the death penalty. Few people ever ask why.
Murders per 100,000(1960) by Region
New England: 1.2
South: 9.4
South(if TX/OK are included): 9.3
Mid-Atlantic: 2.7**
Midwest: 2.8
Southwest: 7.3(with TX/OK included)
Intermountain West: 4.2
Intermountain West(if AZ/NM are included): 4.9
Pacific Coast: 2.8
Pacific Coast(with AK/HI): 4.2
Alaska: 10.2
Hawaii: 2.4
**New York doesn't have any data before 1965
Murders per 100,000(1980) by Region(1980 was the beginning of the drug epidemic)
New England: 3.5
South: 12.4
South(if TX/OK are included): 12.5
Mid-Atlantic: 8.8
Midwest: 5.1
Southwest(with TX/OK included): 12.5
Intermountain West: 7.3
Intermountain West(if AZ/NM are included): 8.4
Pacific Coast: 8.3
Pacific Coast(with AK/HI): 8.5
Alaska: 8.9
Hawaii: 8.7
I've tried to find the white non-hispanic murder rate by state but couldn't find ti.
What I found was this trend. Out of the top 10 states with the highest Black murder rates, 4 were in the Midwest, which are Missouri, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
The states with no Black homicides were: Hawaii, Maine, Montana, and North Dakota. Of the bottom 10 states with the lowest Black homicide rates, 5 were located in the West, with 3 of them on the Pacific Coast(Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii), and 2 in the Intermountain West(Montana and Utah).
Another trend I notice is this. Mississippi, which has the second highest murder rate in the USA, and the highest percentage of Blacks in the USA, ranks 40th in Black homicides, with a Black homicide rate of 9.84 murders per 100,000, deviating 1.4 from the state average.
What I found was this trend. Out of the top 10 states with the highest Black murder rates, 4 were in the Midwest, which are Missouri, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
Most of the rest (Pennsylvania, Louisiana, maybe Tennessee) have cities with severe inner city decay.
Quote:
The states with no Black homicides were: Hawaii, Maine, Montana, and North Dakota. Of the bottom 10 states with the lowest Black homicide rates, 5 were located in the West, with 3 of them on the Pacific Coast(Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii), and 2 in the Intermountain West(Montana and Utah).
All of these state have a very small black population.
Quote:
Another trend I notice is this. Mississippi, which has the second highest murder rate in the USA, and the highest percentage of Blacks in the USA, ranks 40th in Black homicides, with a Black homicide rate of 9.84 murders per 100,000, deviating 1.4 from the state average.
That suggests white murder rate must be fairly high for the black and general murder to nearly similar. Why is Alabama's black murder rate nearly double Mississippi?
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.
