Violent Crimes: What's wrong with the USA?

[dopcombo]

Millenium, hmm, ok maybe its not about the costs.
But more from deterrance factor?

With drug selling, you result in many drug addicts who cannot find work, and then have to resort to crimes to sustain their addiction (i'm thinking cocaine, not ecstacy kinda addicts). Will making it a crime punishable by death solve something?

I have no idea if this will work... just throwing it in.

 

[styrafoam]

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: styrafoam

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: rbloedow Am I the only one who fails to see this as a problem. With the huge amount of people we have in the US, the percentage isn't really that huge. More people die from the flu than are killed.

if it were just a matter of raw numbers, then it wouldn't be as big a deal. but what the op, i, and others are contending is that it's disproportionate to our population, as compared to other countries.

Which other countries? Denmark? South Africa? Cambodia? Mexico? Would any of those be fair compairsions? I can't really see how any comparison can be truly proportionate in reguards to anything except for the raw statistical data.

why not? what other factors really need to be considered besides deaths/population? obviously we can't say that if denmark has 4 violent crime deaths and we have 4,000 that we're 1,000 times more viiolent than denmark. but if 0.001% of denmark's citizens, and 0.003% of south africa's citizens, and 0.002% of cambodia's citizens, etc. die from violent crimes and 0.1% of our citizens die of violent crimes every year, then there's a clear problem

(%s here are hypothetical for purposes of explaining why it's justified to compare our country to others)

Consider each country individually and the situations it's population faces, and then factor in humanity's violent tendencies. Denmark has far, far fewer murders. They are also far smaller geographicly and far less populated. They border on Germany and the ocean. A pretty peaceful part of the earth, they take care of themselves pretty well and it shows in their crime statistics. But there isn't really a refrence point to what one could consider normal, it just takes a minor detail to change the perspective on things. Rwanda: how should civil war and genocide relate to the stats of violent death per capita? According to this link Colombia is on top, with South Africa in 2nd place. Its a couple years old by its own admission but it did state this one thing which kind of sums up my whole thought on the whole murders per capita discussion:

Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

Is every nation honest? Do they follow the same guidelines as the others whose data was given when reporting murders? Do they face a greater burden in the stability of their government and the makeup of the nation's cultures?

Stats are put together to influence another persons thoughts on any given subject. You probably couldn't say that you know where or how they were compiled, and what criteria was used in sorting them into numbers but they have reached you and done what the author intended. Take it all with a grain of salt, and consider that you have a snapshot.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dopcombo
Millenium, hmm, ok maybe its not about the costs.
But more from deterrance factor?

With drug selling, you result in many drug addicts who cannot find work, and then have to resort to crimes to sustain their addiction (i'm thinking cocaine, not ecstacy kinda addicts). Will making it a crime punishable by death solve something?

I have no idea if this will work... just throwing it in.

Of course not. Punishing property crime with death(like horse thievery used to be) only makes it harder to capture criminals and makes them more violent. You punish violent offenders with hard time and not property or blue law offenders. Plus, there may be many unemployed drug addicts that steal, but there are also plenty of employed people that steal as well. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the raw numbers are higher for non-drug addicts(of course they would be)but that drug addicts would be slightly higher per capita.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: pg22
How on earth are accidents & medical problems comparable to violent crime??

Just pointing out the magic of statistics.

Also, you could argue many of the accidents and medical conditions are preventable.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: dopcombo
And now the question that begs to be asked.

How many of you would give up the much more extensive civil liberties you enjoy in the US, to stay in a stricter country like...oh... Singapore? Sure, you get death for taking drugs, but hey, violent crime is minimal.

So?

That is a very scary thought, and the day that happens is the day John Titor becomes right.

*pushes clip into gun*

:|

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Pudgygiant
Influenza deaths in 1995 (the only statistics I could find quickly) were around 8500, or 23.3 deaths per day. The population then was around 266,000,000, as opposed to an estimated 284,000,000 in 2001. I really don't think there was an increase of 88% influenza deaths from the whopping 6% population increase.

EDIT*
Wow, big mistake on my part. Influenza deaths were around 85,000 not 8500, in 1995. link

So according to the CDC an average of 233 people died per day from influenza in 1995 (probably more). So I take back the fact that violent crimes are killing a significant part of the population. It's just that (like people have said) the numbers are way skewed as compared to other countries. Lemme find hard statistics.

EDIT*
Here's some USA statistics, it says nothing about deaths though. Notice how violent crimes were actually HIGHER during the good market and LOWER during 2000, the beginning of the recession. link

Keep in mind-- Almost EVERYONE who dies fom Influenza is OLD and/or WEAK. Among people who are not "ready" to die, violent crimes rank WAY up there.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Oh, and I will add this-- more people are slain in the City of Los Angeles (LAPD sectors) each year per capita than in Israel if you account for the fact that Israel has 6 million+ people and LA City (LAPD sectors) has 3.8 million.

Think about that.

I will provide links if needed, but this info is all from the Israeli Government and LAPD.

 

[tcsenter]

Not to destroy your argument, but I have a serious problem with any victim survey because people tend to exaggerate, and it also varies among culture what exactly a specific crime entails. Was the data normed any among the researchers or read over by a representative of the police from a country?

Its the same International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS) that has been conducted since 1989 and is methodologically similar to USDOJ/BJS NCVS. Each country fielded and funded its own survey, with technical coordination by the Dutch Ministry of Justice and a private Dutch firm:

The International Crime Victimisation Survey (ICVS) is the most far-reaching programme of fully standardised sample surveys looking at householders' experience of crime in different countries. The first ICVS took place in 1989, the second in 1992, the third in 1996 and the fourth in 2000. Surveys have been carried out in 24 industrialised countries since 1989, and in 46 cities in developing countries and countries in transition. This report deals with seventeen industrialised countries which took part in the 2000 ICVS.

The reason for setting up the ICVS was the inadequacy of other measures of crime across country. Figures of offences recorded by the police are problematic due to differences in the way the police define, record and count crime. And since victims report most crimes the police know about, police figures can differ simply because of differences in reporting behaviour. It is also difficult to make comparisons of independently organised crime surveys, as these differ in design and coverage.

The aforementioned results are highly consistent with not only previous ICVS results, but also reflected crime trends in each country. For example, between 1995 and 2000, crime decreased in the US while increased in several other countries according to incident-based reporting systems, and the ICVS results proportionately reflect this trend.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Not to destroy your argument, but I have a serious problem with any victim survey because people tend to exaggerate, and it also varies among culture what exactly a specific crime entails. Was the data normed any among the researchers or read over by a representative of the police from a country?

Its the same International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS) that has been conducted since 1989 and is methodologically similar to USDOJ/BJS NCVS. Each country fielded and funded its own survey, with technical coordination by the Dutch Ministry of Justice and a private Dutch firm:

The International Crime Victimisation Survey (ICVS) is the most far-reaching programme of fully standardised sample surveys looking at householders' experience of crime in different countries. The first ICVS took place in 1989, the second in 1992, the third in 1996 and the fourth in 2000. Surveys have been carried out in 24 industrialised countries since 1989, and in 46 cities in developing countries and countries in transition. This report deals with seventeen industrialised countries which took part in the 2000 ICVS.

The reason for setting up the ICVS was the inadequacy of other measures of crime across country. Figures of offences recorded by the police are problematic due to differences in the way the police define, record and count crime. And since victims report most crimes the police know about, police figures can differ simply because of differences in reporting behaviour. It is also difficult to make comparisons of independently organised crime surveys, as these differ in design and coverage.

The aforementioned results are highly consistent with not only previous ICVS results, but also reflected crime trends in each country. For example, between 1995 and 2000, crime decreased in the US while increased in several other countries according to incident-based reporting systems, and the ICVS results proportionately reflect this trend.

You don't think that the ICVS and NCVS differ because of culture, language, and definition in crime?

 

[tcsenter]

Oh, and I will add this-- more people are slain in the City of Los Angeles (LAPD sectors) each year per capita than in Israel if you account for the fact that Israel has 6 million+ people and LA City (LAPD sectors) has 3.8 million.

Think about that.

Israel is a very flawed basis for comparison. Reason being, Israel hardly has any violent crime at all except for that related to the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

Remember the first week after 9/11, police departments across the country reported a dramatic decrease in violent crime? For a moment, however brief, it was as though all the violent criminals just decided to stay home and watch television like everyone else. For a moment, however brief, it was as though the entire country put aside all their differences and everyone came together as Americans (except Michael Moore, who was exploiting the tragedy to attack the Bush Administration not more than 48 hours later).

Israel is like that every week.

 

[Pudgygiant]

I was reading about John Titor. Even if he was a fraud (which I'd say is the general consensus ATM) he really had the right idea, trying to unite humanity now. And there was one post where he asked "Do you not think it would be better if half of your population died?" That's really a thinker. If it was selective, then yes, I think the world would benefit if we could kill half of the population. But if it was random...

Anyway, I digress. Sorry to derail this.

 

[Skyline622]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Am I the only one who fails to see this as a problem. With the huge amount of people we have in the US, the percentage isn't really that huge. More people die from the flu than are killed.

 

[0roo0roo]

what matters more then plain totals is whether the majority of violent crimes are concentrated in small areas thus not affecting most people, and if the crimes involved people who knew each other. less annoying then purely random crime.

 

[Red Dawn]

Violent Crimes: What's wrong with the USA?

Brick throwing Morons!

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: dopcombo
And now the question that begs to be asked.

How many of you would give up the much more extensive civil liberties you enjoy in the US, to stay in a stricter country like...oh... Singapore? Sure, you get death for taking drugs, but hey, violent crime is minimal.

So?

In America, you can go to jail, in Switzerland, we can smoke and nobody really cares. Compare the US to Europe, and not to an extreme country like Singapore.

 

[NeoV]

tcsenter, your ability to take out the pieces that don't fit to make your point seem valid amazes me......

you compare European countries' stats on car theft, theft, etc.....and only preface it with "with the exception of homicide and attempted homicide" - ISN'T that what we are talking about here? Car theft has very little, if anything, to do with the discussion on violent crime. You can't take murders and attempted murders out of the discussion and your comparison when that is exactly what this entire discussion is about!!!!

Then, when someone compares Israel to LA County, you say "Israel is a very flawed basis for comparison. Reason being, Israel hardly has any violent crime at all except for that related to the Israeli-Palestine conflict". Hello? Isn't the comparison completely valid? Even with all of the terrorist-related activities, and nearly twice the population, there are more killings in LA. How is that not exactly what we are talking about here? Why is there very little violent crime in Israel?


Oh, and the guy who mentioned that there is no outcry because only black people are affected by violent crime? You are paritally right, only YOU and people like you, who have no idea on who is affected by violent crime in the US, are the ones keeping the outcry from happening - White America, for the most part, sits back in their houses and thinks that the horror stories they see on the news are on the other side of the world, when in fact they are right down the street.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic
Crime always goes up when the economy goes down.

Yep, that trickle down Economics and Tax Cuts at work.

 

[tcsenter]

tcsenter, your ability to take out the pieces that don't fit to make your point seem valid amazes me......

you compare European countries' stats on car theft, theft, etc.....and only preface it with "with the exception of homicide and attempted homicide" - ISN'T that what we are talking about here? Car theft has very little, if anything, to do with the discussion on violent crime. You can't take murders and attempted murders out of the discussion and your comparison when that is exactly what this entire discussion is about!!!!

NeoV, your ability to take out the pieces that don't fit to make your point seem valid amazes me. Ok, well, not really....

But auto theft is not a simple property crime like sneaking the morning paper from a neighbor's door step before he wakes. Auto theft is a huge problem for many countries and is increasingly associated with violent methods such as forcible robbery, terroristic intimidation, and assault and battery.

However, since you apparently believe that theft is so insignificant of a crime that people wouldn't mind living in a country where the population is under constant seige by thieves and bandits (e.g. England and Wales) and thus should be excluded from any discussion of international crime rates (because it makes the US look great compared with Canada and several European countries), then I will remove the offending category of auto theft from the discussion. That leaves us with:

Burglary and Attempted Burglary: % victimised once or more in 1999

Average = 3.3

Australia = 6.6
England & Wales = 5.2
Canada = 4.4
Denmark = 4.2
USA = 3.8
Switzerland = 2.7
France = 2.3
Finland = 1.2


Selected contact crime (robbery, sexual assault and assault with force): % victimised once or more in 1999

Average = 2.4

Australia = 4.1
England and Wales = 3.6
Canada = 3.4
Finland = 3.2
Denmark = 2.3
Switzerland = 2.1
USA = 1.9
Japan = 0.41

Assaults and threats

The question asked of respondents to identify assaults and threats was: "Apart from the incidents just covered, have you over the past five years been personally attacked or threatened by someone in a way that really frightened you, either at home or elsewhere, such as in a pub, in the street, at school, on public transport, on the beach, or at your workplace?"

Overall, 3.5% of respondents indicated that they have been a victim of an assault with force or a threat of force. (Details by country are in Appendix 4, Tables 1, 2, and 6.) There were higher than average rates in Australia, Scotland, England and Wales (about 6%), and Canada (5%). The USA rate was 3.4%.

Assault with Physical Force: % victimised once or more in 1999

Average = 1.5

England and Wales = 2.8
Australia = 2.4
Canada = 2.3
France = 1.4
Sweden = 1.2
USA = 1.2
Switzerland = 1.0

Source: Kesteren, J.N. van, Mayhew, P. & Nieuwbeerta, P; Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Countries: Key-findings from the 2000 international Crime Victims Survey. The Hague, Ministry of Justice, WODC

What's wrong with England and Wales, Australia, Canada, and Denmark? Why do they have so much more violent crime than the United States?

Hello? Isn't the comparison completely valid? Even with all of the terrorist-related activities, and nearly twice the population, there are more killings in LA. How is that not exactly what we are talking about here? Why is there very little violent crime in Israel?

I already explained the reason why. Israel is a close-knit community of people who are essentially of the same theology and cultural identity (not to mention about 90% semitic caucasian), and who are constantly under attack by people who aren't of their theology and cultural identity. This unites them for the same reasons and in the same ways that the 9/11 attacks had the effect of uniting the United States, however brief it may have been, when Americans stopped fighting with each other because we perceived a common danger and enemy. Israel experiences a couple 9/11's every year in addition to a dozen smaller terrorist attacks. Los Angeles is nothing like Israel.

 

[NeoV]

ok, so could you please explain excluding murder and attempted murder from a discussion about violent crime? I'd say those are the two biggest issues here, yet you chose to ignore them to make the US' rates in other categories look more important.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Oh, and I will add this-- more people are slain in the City of Los Angeles (LAPD sectors) each year per capita than in Israel if you account for the fact that Israel has 6 million+ people and LA City (LAPD sectors) has 3.8 million.

Think about that.

Israel is a very flawed basis for comparison. Reason being, Israel hardly has any violent crime at all except for that related to the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

Remember the first week after 9/11, police departments across the country reported a dramatic decrease in violent crime? For a moment, however brief, it was as though all the violent criminals just decided to stay home and watch television like everyone else. For a moment, however brief, it was as though the entire country put aside all their differences and everyone came together as Americans (except Michael Moore, who was exploiting the tragedy to attack the Bush Administration not more than 48 hours later).

Israel is like that every week.

OK, I agree that Los Angeles and Israel are totally different situations, BUT here is my point:

1) If a kid or car is shot at in Israel, it is at once international news-- its on the AP wire, and Yahoo and other news portals put it on their front pages. If a kid gets shot in LA, you are lucky to have it make the 5pm news. I know that again, we are dealing with different types of violence -- one political and one "random" -- but I cant help but worry that we are "ignoring" problems here in the USA when we are simultaneously charging all over the world at great expense and effort.

2) My main point is that regardless of exactly WHY the violence occurs, the FACT is that it is almost as dangerous to live in LA as it is to live in Israel. If anything, a random citizen in LA might be MORE likely to be the victim of violence than a random Tel Aviv citizen. That to me is astounding considering the situation in Israel is one of the great horrors of the 20th and 21st centuries.

 

[tcsenter]

My main point is that regardless of exactly WHY the violence occurs, the FACT is that it is almost as dangerous to live in LA as it is to live in Israel. If anything, a random citizen in LA might be MORE likely to be the victim of violence than a random Tel Aviv citizen. That to me is astounding considering the situation in Israel is one of the great horrors of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Ok, I think you're confused.

Just as the 2,752 (latest estimate) homicides resulting from 9/11 are excluded from official US homicide rates for the year 2001, so too are political homicides excluded from official Israeli homicide rates. Most countries classify terrorist attacks as crimes against the state and do not include them in their civil/public law and order crime statistics. Israel classifies them as Criminal Offenses Against the Security of the State, which is seperate from general homicide statistics.

I'd be interested in seeing your numbers and source.