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.
America is driven by stats . Mostly by race/ethnicity ,economic status & gender . For the past week i have been on city data explaining my opinion on how much crime stats are no where near accurate when we actually use them to compare small or mid-sized cities to big cities . Some cities ghettos actually lie outside the city limits making the city "safe" (but are often considered a part of the city). Some cities "safe" areas lie outside of the actual city limits (but are often considered a part of the city) Every year we have t'he "Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities" list & we have a "Top 10 Safest Big Cities" list
Per Capita could really never be a way to judge how bad a city would be if it was the size of lets say a Los Angeles or New York . I have explained this many times And i could explain this theory simply using my own metro area the City Of Compton has a higher homicide rate than that of Los Angeles if Compton were the size of LA and had the population of LA going on the 2005 homicide rate of Compton (72 out of 100,000) Compton would have almost 2,900 Homicides . LA (city) is about 4 million (72 for every 100,000 x 40 would = 2,880) If Compton were to be in its same geographic location and was to be the size of LA's population and land mass of LA, Compton would not be more dangerous than LA . Why ? Because geographically Compton would be The area we call Los Angeles . This is one example of why per capita stats dont matter as much as the powers that be persuade us to believe .
This would prove that (on the average) small to medium sized cities crime/homicide rates of "Dangerous Cities" shouldnt and cannot be compared to those of large cities
Another Example i pulled from this article i found on the internet might shed some light to how stats are used
Quote:
Cities also differ in other ways that have nothing to do with their crime risk but can greatly affect their ranking. Pure geographic happenstance —the location of the boundary line separating "city" and "suburb" — is one. Some central cities are geographically small and do not include as many middle-class areas as do larger central cities. If they did, the added population would lower their crime rate.
St. Louis, where I live, is less than 62 square miles in a metropolitan area of 3,322 square miles and contains only 13% of the area population. Washington is only 61 square miles in a metropolitan area of 6,509 square miles and contains only 12% of the metro population. In contrast, well over half of the residents in the Memphis metro area live in the central city, which covers about 280 square miles.
This next example shows how misleading crime/homicide rates are in "Safe" big cities (once again im using examples from my metro area)
Quote:
Los Angeles citywide and countywide homicide rates are deceiving because, like all big cities, Los Angeles County is a combination of safe and dangerous neighborhoods. Areas with very few homicides, such as Brentwood, Malibu, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and Woodland Hills form a patchwork with areas with a lot of homicides, such as Compton, South-Central, Watts, Crenshaw and Athens.
The differences are so extreme that they render the county- and citywide rates almost meaningless. The Los Angeles Police Department's Southeast Division in Watts, for example, had a homicide rate of 73 deaths per 100,000 , over 5 times the citywide average
For all these reasons, if crime rates are to be compared at all, the comparisons should be among metropolitan areas, not central cities. Doing so can change the picture dramatically. St. Louis, second in crime among central cities according to the new city rankings, places 120th in crime among the nation's metropolitan areas.
Crime rankings tell us little about how safe we are, but the rankings themselves can hurt. Businesses think twice about relocating to "dangerous" cities. Organizations think twice about holding conventions there. Families think twice about visiting. Suburban residents needlessly fear the city. Crime rankings make no one safer. They should be ignored.
.
Another way crime rates are misleading is because certain cities inflate population numbers and under report crimes . "Safe" Big Cities are infamous for doing this im sure if you do your research you will find several articles on it .
This is just my theory on crime rates . Just for the use of having something to talk about on this thread
A. Different cities have different ways of reporting crimes.
Want to see a huge drop in your violent crime level San Antonio?
Just start labeling 'assaults' as 'drunk and disorderly', 'PIs' or 'criminal mischief' etc.
LOOKING AT THE MURDER RATE IS THE BEST WAY TO JUDGE A MSA.
It's real hard to fudge a murder as something it's not.
Which leads us to...
B. Stats depend on people *reporting* the crime.
Some people don't report assaults for fear of being labeled a 'punk' by the neighbors.
Some communities and cultures have a taboo about reporting rape, other places have support systems
and call it like it happens...their stats would seem to indicate there are rapists around every corner!
C.(like you said above) 'Metro Areas' are more telling than 'cities'.
The boundaries of cities, to my knowledge, can be altered to affect statistics.
Some cities have urban blight and crime some have been largely gentrified and poor people pushed to the suburbs.
Another dynamic is the distribution of crime in the city/county/metro. From what I understand about St Louis, for example, is that most of the violent crime in the city is concentrated in the northern half of the city, with the southern half being relatively much safer. At the same time, there is East St Louis, a separate city, that appears to have no safe neighborhoods. There are some small suburbs west of the city that also have high violent crime rates.
In as another example, Rochester has a small footprint and many of its neighborhoods have a high violent crime rate. It is the most violent city in the state, even though it's only the 3rd largest in population. Meanwhile, there are arguably NO Rochester suburbs that have high rates of violent crime, and some of them are consistently rated as the "safest cities" in the nation.
I believe detailed demographic information should be included as well. Here in Baton Rouge, the white/black population is approximately 50/50. However, a detailed report done by our local newspaper found that--statistically--80% to 90% of the time, the victims and the assailants are African Americans. For white people in the city, crime is not that big of a deal, because if they play their cards right, they will most likely not become criminals and they will not become victims.
LOOKING AT THE MURDER RATE IS THE BEST WAY TO JUDGE A MSA.
It's real hard to fudge a murder as something it's not.
.
If a metro area is big like Los Angeles or NYC it is still misleading unless further broke down which big cities rarely do because of fear of of a bad reputation and another reason murder rate isnt always the best way is because . We rarely talk about the people that get shot and survive with permanent injures for a while but then die because of their injuries . That is never counted as a murder .
I believe detailed demographic information should be included as well. Here in Baton Rouge, the white/black population is approximately 50/50. However, a detailed report done by our local newspaper found that--statistically--80% to 90% of the time, the victims and the assailants are African Americans. For white people in the city, crime is not that big of a deal, because if they play their cards right, they will most likely not become criminals and they will not become victims.
Well if they did that the crimes of serial killers ,rape,child molestation ,kidnapping & would officially become a "white" problem because the majority of the people that commit these crimes around the USA are White Americans.
I say if the busy downtown is dangerous, than the city is dangerous.. If the neighborhood outside of it's busy downtown is dangerous while the inner downtown is relatively safe that means that particular area is dangerous.
They should start giving stats on cities neighborhoods when they give out it's OVERALL city crime stats.
Detroit and Camden are prime examples of being dangerous cities
Newark and Miami are cities people don't understand.. if you're out of the dangerous Nhoods, you'll most likely be fine.
I say if the busy downtown is dangerous, than the city is dangerous.. If the neighborhood outside of it's busy downtown is dangerous that means that particular area is dangerous.
They should start giving stats on cities neighborhoods when they give out it's OVERALL city crime stats.
Detroit and Camden are prime examples of being dangerous cities
Newark and Miami are cities people don't understand.. if you're out of the dangerous Nhoods, you'll most likely be fine.
The problem with putting too much weight on crime stats in large cities, is that, without exception, crime rates vary tremendously from neighborhood to neighborhood within the city. Even in Detroit, while many of the residential neighborhoods have sky high crime rates, the crime rate in downtown Detroit is very low. In places like Chicago, 227 square miles in area, criminal activity which takes place 20 miles away, while in the same city, has little direct effect on day to day life in one of the gentrified affluent neighborhoods.
I say if the busy downtown is dangerous, than the city is dangerous.. If the neighborhood outside of it's busy downtown is dangerous that means that particular area is dangerous.
They should start giving stats on cities neighborhoods when they give out it's OVERALL city crime stats.
Detroit and Camden are prime examples of being dangerous cities
Newark and Miami are cities people don't understand.. if you're out of the dangerous Nhoods, you'll most likely be fine.
Actually there are areas of Detroit that are safe the way they make it seem is like the whole city is trash there are a couple nice neighborhoods of detroit . The Detroit metro area has nice areas within it . Stats will make you believe otherwise
Quote:
Crime is unevenly distributed throughout the city. A 2006 study showed crime in downtown Detroit (CBD) is much lower than national, state and metro averages. The Detroit Police Department's Crime Analysis Unit has reported that crimes have dropped by 24 percent since the introduction of casino gaming to the city . The homicide count fell to 394 for the year, with an FBI estimated population of 860,971. According to a 2007 analysis, Detroit officials noted that about 65 to 70 percent of homicides in the city were confined to a narcotics catalyst.
^ That's why, in most areas, law-abiding citizens should be more concerned with the risk of automobile accidents than crime victimization.
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.
