Talk:Crime in the United States/Archive 1

Expansion
This article will be significantly expanded within a short amount of time. It is nowhere near finished. Thank you. Best Regards,  Signature brendel  03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I finished the initial major extension phase. Regards,  Signature brendel  06:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with calling states "dangerous"
This section tends to conflate the violent and property crime rates. For example, there is a sentence: "Of the nation's three most populous states, California, Texas and New York, both New York and California had crime rates below the national average, while Texas was one of the country's seven most dangerous states" But this is based upon adding the violent crime rate to the property crime rate, thus giving Texas the rank of 7. Texas has a lower violent crime rate and a higher property crime rate. Most people would consider "dangerous" to mean violent crime. So it would be good to be precise when comparing rankings. Perhaps the thing to do is to make rankings for violent crime and property crime separately.Kevinp2 03:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the word dangerous actually only refers to all crime in this sentence. Would you like me to replace the word dangerous?  Signature brendel  Now under review! 03:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that would be more precise Kevinp2 22:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I changed the wording to "Of the nation's three most populous states, California, Texas and New York, both New York and California had crime rates below the national average, while Texas had one of the country's seven highest overall crime rates." Regards,  Signature brendel  Now under review! 23:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with German homicide rates
There seems to be a misreading in case of the German crime statistic. The stated 3.0 cases per 100.000 inhabitants are actually the number of attempted murders and manslaughters. The 'success rate' is actually around 1.0.


 * You're right, how could I overlook that! The Mord und Totschlag (homicide) rates include attempts. The homicide rate according to the BKA is 1.1. See here. Thank you for the correction! Regards,  Signature brendel  Now under review! 02:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nebraska
The table "Number of Crimes per 100,000 persons (Crime Rates)" is missing a row for Nebraska. 129.93.191.229 07:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Prose issue in lead
I like how much work has gone into this article. But, "Crime in the United States is characterized by relatively high levels of gun violence and homicide, compared to other developed countries although this is explained by the fact that criminals in America are more likely to use firearms.." That's not a sentence. That's ridiculous. Gun violence is relatively high, which is /explained by/ the fact that criminals are more likely to use firearms? What? What was this sentence trying to say, and how on earth did it wind up there? Also, why two periods? :)Eh Nonymous 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That sentence truly is an example of bad writing (it also isn't the original opening sentence I used when I wrote this article). I think the sentence trying to say that becuase American criminals are more likely to use fireamrs there are more homicides (becuase killing with a gun is easier than with a knife). I will re-word the intro-sentence. Regards,  Signature brendel  00:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for information on impact of illegal immigrants
Someone should mention the proportion of crime committed by illegal immigrants and it's impact on US statistics.18.127.1.9 16:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I can look it into it but undocumanted workers are probably no more likely to fall vicitim to or comitt crimes than any other magrinalized and imporverished group such as poor inner-city minority residents. The 12 million or so undocumented workers do have an unproportionally high crime rate (mostly vicitimizing themselves), as do other groups. I think the race section already makes it clear that those who are disinfranchised have a higher likelyhood of becoming vicitms/perpetrators. Regards,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I read that 33% of prisoners in American prisons were illegal immigrants. I would think this would skew our rankings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rotten (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Where did you read that?  Signature brendel  17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't you think that calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers" is ridiculously POV? It implies that 100% of illegal aliens are "working", which would at the very least violate child-labor laws.  Furthermore, it grants legitimacy to the percentage of illegal aliens maintain their lifestyle through criminal means.  I think that "illegal alien" is an entirely neutral and factual term, especially considering the term which supports my own POV (namely, "colonist"). Loundry (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with crime statistics for largest cities
The article claims to have crime stats for the top 10 largest cities in the country, but doesn't include either Jacksonville, FL or Detroit, MI. And what is Seattle doing on there?? Washington, DC, Boston, MA, and Baltimore, MD all have bigger populations than Seattle.71.206.184.243 (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point... I don't know why Boston, Baltimore, etc... are missing but smaller cities, such as seattle are included. I will correct the mistake in a short while, unless someone beats me to it (something I encourage in this case!). Rergards,  Signature brendel  02:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the claim that Dallas, TX is the nation's most dangerous city. In the top ten alone, Philadelphia has higher per capita crime rates than does Dallas, and this isn't even considering smaller cities, such as Baltimore and Detroit.  The citation that backed up the assertion was simply to a table comparing the crime rates of municipalities in Texas, not nationwide.71.242.206.175 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Might I add that alot of these stats are probably outdated or incorrectly added, I am not so sure about the rest but I know New York still is not correct. Way back months ago I used the source provided and changed a couple of the stats such as the homicide rate, a couple I could not find info on though (such as burglary). Might I recommend that someone who has the time go through with those sources and review the stats and make sure they are of present time, then again, NY may be the only one still incorrect but it wouldn't hurt to check the rest as well. 154.20.22.185

Request for assistance on uploading a graphic
Hi, I have made a colour coded graph using crime figures from wikipedia to highlight which areas in America have more crime and which have less, but I'm not sure how to upload it, can anyone help me? Thanks muchly :D08:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.178.171 (talk)

Request for information on arrest statistics
it would be nice to know what % of americans are arrested in their lifetime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.120.169 (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have stats on what % of American adults have been arrested in their lifetime? Only arrested, not convicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.14.213 (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The name of the country is United States of America
Since the countries official name is the United States of America, shouldn't that be in the name of the article, instead of simply United States?  D r e a m Focus  00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME would apply, as it applies to United States. SGGH ping! 13:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WT:LE and sub-divisions of Crime in the United States
There is a build up of Crime in [X State] article requested at WP:RA. Would there be any need for such articles on state-by-state crime? Or do editors feel that this article is enough? I have linked WT:LE here to see if there is any consensus. SGGH ping! 13:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics of crime victims
"in the United States in 2005, 37,460 White females were sexually assaulted or raped by a Black man, while between zero and ten Black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a White man" what is the meaning of this? only 10 females raped by white man? stands to common sense that these numbers look wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.38.76 (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is correct. For both 2004 and 2005, the two most recent years, the number of incidents of sexual assault with a white perpatrator and a black victim was 0.0 percent.  Of 36,620 cases in which the victim was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.  This is the DOJ link for 2005:  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0502.pdf  Table number 42.  This is for 2004: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0402.pdf  Table 42 again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.219.141 (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Completely false, the 0.0 figure is an estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases. If anything, that means the figure is less accurate. It should also be mentioned that the numbers vary significantly over the years. For example, it is conveniently left out that in 2004, of the cases where the victim was white, only 8.3% of the perpetrators were black. In fact the 33.6 figure from 2005 is significantly higher than the number from any previous year given by the USDoJ site. In 2002, of the cases with a black victim, 14.7% had a white perpetrator. I think it's reasonable to be skeptical of these numbers. 74.92.159.213 (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Jason


 * This needs to be edited out. First, a sample size of 10 isn't statistically viable to get results (the sample size is so small the results could be off by margins matching the size of the sample).  Second, the sample size is "10 or fewer", and I would trust that with such a small sample size, the exact number should be known, and should not be listed as fewer than 10.  It makes me suspect that 10 is just a placeholder for 0, as is no sample was ever taken.76.177.59.210 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem with correlation of state income and state crime
In regards to the following sentence, "'The nation's more dangerous states, such as Texas, Arizona and Arkansas in turn ranked among those with a household income below the national median.'" None of the three states in this line are in the top 10 in violent crime rates. Calling them the "nations more nation's dangerous states" is a stretch.--12.70.130.170 (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This section appears to contain original research, namely the paragraph asserting a correlation between median household income and crime by state. If this can be supported by actual research, other than that of the author, the claim needs to be cited.  Briefly looking at the data, I don't see a significant correlation between the two variables at the state level.  Between median HH income and violent crime correlation is -0.0835 and with property crime it is -0.1414.  Now if "correlation" is meant as a casual observance and not a real statistical analysis, I think there are enough relatively "poor" states with very low crime rates (including Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maine) to refute this claim. Pharbs82 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, the section seems to go too far by itself in the logical process, and there are certainly exceptions to such broad generalizations. However, I don't think it should be a problem finding reliable sources claiming a link between poverty and crime in the US.  A brief google search gives me this one, this one and this one.  None of those really look at it geographically though, maybe we could have a new section called "Poverty and crime" or something like that?  TastyCakes (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for information on solved crimes
Is there any data on the rates of solved crimes? Aren't most crimes never solved? Stars4change (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Error in 2008 total homicides
"According to the FBI, in 2008 14,180 people were murdered in America." This is incorrect. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report for 2008 states that in 2008 16,272 people were murdered in the United States. The other figure is the number of these murders that occurred in jurisdictions that also submitted the optional Supplementary Homicide Data Report, from which the estimates are drawn as to the race, ethnicity, etc. of victims and perpetrators. ññññ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.148.22 (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems with characteristics of offenders
"Whites are more often the offenders of sex-related homicides, workplace killings, and homicide by poison. For example, for workplace killings, 70.5% were White, 26.7% were Black, and 2.8% were Other."

There is no statistic to back up the "sex related homicides", but my main problem is that saying that whites are more often the offenders of workplace killings because 70.5% of them white is misleading and actually false because whites are more then 70.5% of the population, so in fact that means they are slightly less likely to commit said crime. Conversely, african americans being 26.7% of work related killings means that they are the most likely to commit said crimes because with a population of about 13% for african americans, 26.7% is double their respective percentage of the population. So this should corrected to show that african americans disproportionately commit work place killings, and not whites. I think they way it is presented is very misleading as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHistory (talk • contribs) 00:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Another statistic that seems to be ignored is the ratio of employment between black and white populations. With a higher ration of white employment vs. black, there appears to be a significant disconnect without taking this into account. In simple terms, with a higher unemployment ratio of black vs. white, where is this discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.179.24 (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Image request for state map coloration
Could anyone recreate the U.S. map so that it has a color sequence that people can actually tell what color a state is. Try something different instead of nine shades of red? A color scheme such as Dark Green (Safe), Light Green, Yellow, Yellow Orange, Orange, Red, Maroon, Violet, Black... would be much easier to view. Thanks. ~Vogey04 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.148.43 (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Prose issue in clearance of crime section
"After arrest, 45.1% of violent crimes and 17.4% of property crimes nationwide were cleared by arrest or exceptional means.[11]"What does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

International comparison discussion
I included Scotland in the international comparisons, even though it is part of the UK, because with it's small population it cannot make a huge difference in the rate of the UK overall, despite being significantly higher, and their overall violent crime rate has been heavily documented as the highest among nations that are usually considered "first-world". Also, being part of the UK, they are subjected to some of the world's strictest gun laws, but has a higher murder rate than countries with much more liberal laws. Also, a number of books (Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals, Jim Webb's Born Fighting) have discussed a significant cultural impact that the Scottish/Scotch-Irish, due to their settling much of the frontier and being really the first big immigrant group not already in America by the 17th century, have had on American culture. So I just felt that the figure would be useful in the table. Gtbob12 (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Scotland is in the UK. Please edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.214.110 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed.--Karljoos (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The following sentence is misleading and should be removed: "Interestingly enough, the overall violent crime rate in the United States was roughly half that of Canada..." As the article explains, the FBI and Statistics Canada do not count the same crimes. The FBI for example excludes common assault, sexual assault and some types of robbery. Common assault in Canada makes up the majority of all violent crime. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done removed/reworked but still alluded to since it is a misconception that is still circulating in the conservative/republican/gun lobby circles. GardenMulch (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I took out the sentence "Only the homicide rate of Northern Ireland in the early 1990s compares to that of the United States today." First off, I'm not sure what the source is, and second, I'm not sure what it means. Does it imply that the only other country with such a high rate of murder was Northern Ireland during that period? This is contradicted by the table, which clearly shows Russia with a higher rate than the US as recently as 2000. Does it just mean (from the prior sentence) among "industrialized nations"? Does Russia not count as industrialized? One way or another, get a source 72.93.87.3 (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with mathematical calculations
"Overall, the national crime rate was 4982 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 4852 crimes per 100,000 residents thirty years earlier in 1974 (-17.6%)." The source doesn't work, either (I was able to access the page, but there was an SQL error when I tried to actually get some results). --Gutza T T+ 03:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In the table "Number of Crimes per 100,000 persons (Crime Rates)", there are numerous errors, not the least of which is murder being included as a property crime. Additionally, Alabama, California, Hawaii, and Michigan all have higher homicide rates than tviolent crime rates, an impossibility as homicide is a component of violent crime; therefore the violent crime rate must always be higher than the homicide rate. Finally, checking the table against the data in the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime In the US, table 5, shows that while a lot of the data is correct, for those particular states, it is completely off. See http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS_2004_Section2.pdf Highly recommend this table be removed and replaced with a correct, up to date table such as from the 2008 UCR CIUS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.251.105 (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * epic math failures indeed. the table is completely misleading, and until the numbers are corrected, it must be removed - WP should not be in the business of promulgating fantasy numbers. Anastrophe (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There are several errors as of the 14th of August, both with regards to the homicide rate versus homicide victimization by race (the rate being between 5-10, the victimization being between 25-45 with white and black victimization added together - something somewhere isn't adding up!) and with regards to the geography of crime, which initially claims: " New Orleans police departments reported more homicides per 100,000 residents than any other jurisdiction. The rate of homicide per 100,000 was 56.0, which was ten times the national average." and then goes on to show a graph with the three worst and five best locales, which notably doesn't include New Orleans despite having just been mentioned as the absolute worst (and also despite it's rate of 56 being higher than Baltimore's rate of 43.5). These errors need to be cleaned up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:2820:2202:A0FD:BEFE:9C86:75DC (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem with definition of homicide as a crime and FBI definition
homicide = someone killing someone else. it is a means of death, not a crime. the crime would be be murder or manslaughter, etc. there is no crime called homicide. including homicide in discussions of crimes is not an accurate crime statistic because homicide is the means of death that goes on the coroners report and not a legal disposition. there is justifiable homicide, self defence for example. that is not a crime. this article needs to clean up this use of a means of death synonymously with crime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.204.251 (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as "the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another." The law allows for willful killings for defense of life and other reasons. Yet most think the FBI report of murder or murder rate as being for unjustifiable crimes. It isn't true.

The FBI murder page continues, "The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults."

The FBI’s UCR Handbook http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/handbook/ucrhandbook04.pdf and this page excludes corrections supplied in findings by a "coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, or court" (see NOTE on p. 17-18 in the UCR Handbook). Also, the FBI's language is very technical and "justifiable homicides" only include those done by police officers -- civilian killing which are "justified" are listed as "excusable".

The count of civilian legal defensive homicides (CLDHs) reported in the FBI UCR are the first blush police results (the FBI never goes back to revise the initial reports). Completely neglected in these initial reports are conclusions drawn after some time as a result of additional police/prosecutor investigations or after trials.

We get some idea of the scope of this under-reporting from Time magazine which published the article "7 Deadly Days", July 17, 1989 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958158,00.html). That article reported 199 murders (charges since trials had not yet been held) and 14 CLDHs or 6.6% of gun homicides for the week of 1-7 May. A year later, Time followed-up their report with the article "Death by Gun: One Year Later", May 14, 1990 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970085,00.html), to see how the courts had handled the cases. In this article a year later Time reported 28 CLDHs (13.1% of gun homicides), an increase of 100% relative to the original report with at least 43 cases not yet adjudicated by the one-year later follow-up.

It seems useful to keep remembering that not all murders reported by the FBI are crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.54.160 (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Aggravated Assault is a component of Violent Crime (+ 404ed references)
Hi, after a discussion I discovered that the FBI definition of violent crime is not just aggravated assault as the article currently states. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime) References 34 and 35 are also unavailable as of this time. I'm posting here instead of editing because further statements root from this one and I'd rather not remove it. Someone may handle this more tactfully than I can? 130.159.149.202 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Errors in sources and outdated Crime Statistics
Your sources appear to be mostly domestic which affects the results. Check here to see actual world wide statistics. Stelarov (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The article cites the total number of homicides from 2008, and the map of violent crime cites 2004 statistics. The FBI has their 2011 crime statistics released and this article needs to be updated. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/murder 74.105.50.48 (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Scottish Murder Rate
I tried to flag up the homicide rate for Scotland as it's obviously wrong but one of the wiki-Nazis changed it back. I don't know what Scotland's murder rate is but according to the BBC, Glasgow has the UK's highest murder rate at 2.7 / 100,000. It is therefore impossible for the murder rate for Scotland to be 16.1.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22276018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.122.16.53 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect / unsupported statement about effects of child abuse and neglect
The following statement is unsupported: "it is widely accepted that children who come from abusive and neglectful households are 60% more likely to commit crimes of rape and/or murder, and there is a 75% chance that they themselves will be abusive and neglectful to their own children."

I'm not sure where the first statement came from (there's no citation), but the second statement is definitely incorrect. Although victims of childhood abuse and neglect are at increased risk for abusing their own children, the majority of them DO NOT go on to abuse or neglect their own children. Source: Intergenerational Continuity in Child Maltreatment; Mediating Mechanisms and Implications for Prevention http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059248/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.190.189 (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the statement. Thanks! poroubalous (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Tables empty of data
Several tables of fascinating looking data only have column headers, no content. :( Derek1G (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Drug "crimes" not addressed?
I understand that drug "crimes" are in some different from other crimes, but many of those incarcerated in the USA are so for that reason alone. So, maybe there should be a bit more about that? I understand that FBI and BJS (perhaps intentionally?) usually keep these figures separate, with the effect being that we have to work harder to understand everything in context. Still, it would be good to see coverage of drug law enforcement on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.128.122.46 (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Concealed Carry Laws Nationwide Must be Factored Into Drop in US Crime
After nine widely varied rationales for the drop in US crime, the elephant in the room- millions of individual Americans nationwide suddenly empowered in the '90s to begin carrying firearms for the defense of themselves and others- was left out. It wasn't more armed servants or laws that changed our criminal statistics so dramatically, it was Americans empowered to arm themselves as free people always have, and able to deal with the criminal usurper at the scene. Paracletos707 (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have a verifiable source? poroubalous (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Assault, aggravated assault, or battery?
I noticed that in the section on violent crime, the article refers repeatedly to physical attacks as “assault.” (IIRC it mentions aggravated assault, but not in a way that implies that it's using "assault" as shorthand for it.)  But as the Wikipedia article on assault points out: “''…assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. …often confused with battery, which involves physical contact.''” Could someone perhaps edit the in-article wording for clarity? —xyzzy 11:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Reason for decline in violent crime
Quote:"'''While the crime rate had risen sharply in the late 1960s and early 1970s, bringing it to a constant all-time high during much of the 1980s, it has declined steeply since 1993. One hypothesis suggests a causal link between legalized abortion and the drop in crime during the 1990s.[9] Another possibility sometimes suggested is the introduction of the Three Strikes Law, which was first passed by Washington state in 1993, providing that felony offenders who committed a third offence receive life imprisonment." ''' -This is ridiculous. The predominant factor in the decline of violent crime during the 1990's through today is the fact that that's when states started issuing Concealed Deadly Weapons permits to private citizens. Even criminals have sense enough to realize that when their former helpless prey could now carry deadly weapons themselves legally, carrying out their illicit plans became worth having a second thought. Of course... That's something the liberal media does not want you to know. Now you do. The criminals know, and they also knew, in 93', that it was coming.Score one for the 2nd amendment, in action. Blueridge1970 (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is pure speculation. There is no research that supports it and Wikipedia isn't the place for original research.  The Gallup Poll that this author cited actually shows that gun ownership was highest in the Early 90s and tied the all-time low (according to the poll data) in 2005.  Overall gun ownership trended down through the 1990s and was lower in the 2000s than in the 1990s, so the theory that more guns reduced crime is pure conservative fantasy.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.133.211.107 (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * More people might be carrying guns for self-defense even if the ownership rate has declined. I find it plausible that criminals have in fact been deterred that way.  The article already mentions several other controversial theories for the decline in the crime rate, so this theory also seems to be worth a mention if a source can be found that discusses it. Kevin Nelson (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it could be added if citation is found, but maybe should also contain gun ownership data as potential rebuttal (some of other points also have contain a counterpoint).Sgtbilko99 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Three Strikes You're Out Laws were suggested during the 1992 election cycle and implemented immediately following." "Realistically violent video games entered the market at the same time violent crime rates decreased; sales of such games correlate inversely with such crime rates." No citations for these. IMHO, last one in particular needs some support. There are undoubtedly many possible correlations (global warming, internet use, time since Washington last won the Super Bowl) but the list should contain only serious theories of causation (or delete the list altogether if too problematic).Sgtbilko99 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate comparison of countries
Of course, it is out of place in a US article to discuss comparisons with another country. The subsection on countries starts out great with statements to that affect. Then compares countries anyway! This section should be removed. The earlier material should be moved to a higher level article presumably called Crime?

I also deleted detailed nonsense about pockets of crime affecting city averages after Dai.. requested cites. This is just the way all statistics work. A bunch of tall people in a group will raise the average height of the group. So what? :) Student7 (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

WTF LOL? :)
what? why is the rate for Chicago in the bottom list gone? I guess some people don't want to admit that Chicago is the worst! :) fix this and be nice. ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.27.140 (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Should socioeconomic status be included in 'characteristics of offenders'?
Perhaps by including stats about socioeconomic statuses a bigger, more complete picture could be conveyed in addition to the more generalized 'characteristics' of biological race and gender. --BeepBorp (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Added a file from Commons


I've added this image from Commons to this article.

Feel free to use it how you like.

I hope it's a helpful source of information.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It seems to raise some questions as well. Since the percentage of people sentenced were, in all cases, fewer than the percentage in their age group, "something" is occurring to make the average age rise. I'm lost. Are federal convictions raising the number? What is the conclusion here? We have more convicts, sure. But what does this article from commons suggest that is different, but consistent within its own data? Student7 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the "Violent crime rates (per 100,000) in the United States" table?
There's only a heading for it, and that goes for the property crimes table, as well. Skaizun (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Crime in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6M1KRmETR?url=http://www.census.gov/2010census/ to http://www.census.gov/2010census/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060828065139/http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm to http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Race as Cause of higher rates
If you control for race, the US violent crime rates are the same as other developed countries. Why isn't this mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.181.194 (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "For persons arrested for rape in 2011, 65% were white, 32.9% were black, and 2.1% were of other races.[25]"


 * 65 (white) +33 (black) +2 (other) = 100% Amazing. Hispanics committed no rapes in 2011! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.47.79 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, because the way we categorise race varies from country to country, making broad comparisons by ethnicity virtually impossible. Secondly, because 'controlling for race' makes no sense - are you talking about excluding ethnic minorities from the figures? Why? Because that conveniently lowers the rate of violent crime? Would you then exclude ethnic minorities from the figures of the other developed nations you're drawing comparison with, or not? And finally, the fact is comparing violent crime is difficult regardless of whether you factor in ethnicity, since different countries categorise crimes differently from the US. The UK, for example, incorporates more crimes under the umbrella of violent crime than the US, as does Canada. So it's impossible to say with certainty the US has the same violent crime rate as other developed countries, whether you 'control for race' or not. 80.193.25.91 (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this article in dispute??
The page says that the facts in the article are in dispute, but: 1. I cannot find it on the list of disputed pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute 2. I see nothing here in the talk section about something being in dispute - only a few comments which have been fully addressed. 3. I don't see any stat or source even remotely fishy or disputable. Am I missing something? 75.36.219.141 (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Arthur

I am removing the factual dispute tag 75.36.219.141 (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Arthur

The disputed tag was added without comment in the edit. The adder has not commented here at all. 75.36.219.141 (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Arthur


 * I'm concerned: The data cited seem to come from Uniform Crime Reports, which are known to be unreliable.  The National Crime Victimization Survey is supposed to be much better, because it is not susceptible to political winds, changes in how law enforcement departments decide whether to enter something in the UCR.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crime in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403051522/http://www.nationalhomeless.org/getinvolved/projects/hatecrimes/pressrelease.html to http://www.nationalhomeless.org/getinvolved/projects/hatecrimes/pressrelease.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Violent crime rate comparison table is pointless so should we remove it?
The table comparing a random assortment of countries' violent crime rates with the US seems pointless, since it's preceded by caveats pointing out how direct comparisons are pretty much impossible due to the different way countries categorise 'violent crime'. So why have it at all? I propose removing the table since it only serves to mislead for the aforementioned reasons. I'd be interested to hear any objections before removing it 80.193.25.91 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the table is pointless, except possibly the murder rate, which probably has a pretty consistent definition across all countries. It also seems to be wrong: List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade has Scotland at 1.11 and England/Wales at 0.91, not 2.66 and 2.6 in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.245.115 (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong year; 2013 figures: Austria 0.73 (not 0.42), Germany 0.77 (not 0.9), England/Wales 0.92 (not 2.6), Scotland 1.15 (not 2.66), US 4.5 (correct!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.245.115 (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The table is inaccurate and rates for 2013 do not correlate with data already on Wikipedia, FBI, ONS and UNODC statistics. If the table is to remain then the data also should be updated for the most recent year in which we have full data for all jurisdictions which is 2016. I have updated the figures to reflect equal data on the List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade page for 2013 but consensus appears that the table is irrelevant. Please discuss. TragicVision1 (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

white supremacist page
showing black murders is white supremacist and facist propaganda, take it down, doesnt belong on wikipedia where kids come to learn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.150.92 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"It is a crime and a felony to call someone who is 18 or 19 years old a man or woman."
I added citation needed tags to this sentence and the related sentence that follows at the end of the Types of human sex trafficking subsection. Frankly, the statements are ridiculous and I can't find any evidence that they're true. Delete?  »»   Stereoisomer    03:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's 100% trolling. The crime articles attract a lot of it. Hunan201p (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That's what I figured. Since it's been a while and no one else has commented, I've removed the sentences in question.  &#187;&#187;   Stereoisomer   </SPAN> 16:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaelanwhite.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mnmarkland.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 17 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexaneybold. Peer reviewers: Benjamin.aviles1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Offender behavior
"Typical characteristics of offenders that are supported by the public are those that suffer from a mental illness or drug addiction, offenders younger than 20–30, offenders older than 30, female offenders, and those of a racial or ethnic majority group. Offender occupation status and legality are also leading affective.[29]"

This paragraph caught my eye. Since when is "the public" ever offered as a reliable source for offender characteristics?

This paragraph seems like a composite of truth and fiction. I've never seen any sources that suggest females are "typical" offenders.

Then I read the source cited, and saw that it does not describe characteristics of typical offenders. It describes something else entirely: public support for community correction (probation) for offenders:

Thus, this appears to be a misrepresentation of this citation. It does not say that the typical offender is female, an immigrant, over the age of 30, or any other characteristics that are verifiably atypical of criminal offenders in the USA. All the citation says is that women, white people, young offenders, etc are more likely to be favored for alternatives to imprisonment than offenders who are male, immigrant, unemployed, black, etc. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Misleading graph, "Total incarceration in the United States by year"
I mean, it's interesting. But it's not a rate, which is the standard and most common representation used in criminology. By using raw numbers, it creates an exaggerated graph. If it showed the rate vs population, it would be dramatically more meaningful. I'm not suggesting that we don't have high incarceration rates. But, without the actual rate, who knows for sure? X/100k is the standard. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

To put a finer point on it - if only in gross terms - the US population was 106M in 1920 at the beginning of the graph. It was three times higher in 2014 by the end of the graph. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Health and the Environment in the Central Valley
— Assignment last updated by C nguyen143 (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)