criminal victimization, 2005
new national crime victimization survey data show relative stability in violent crime rates, after significant declines over the previous decade. according to criminal victimization 2005, both personal (violent) and property crime rates have been halved between 1993 and 2005.i quickly scanned the new bjs report for some bad news. well, i found an uptick in firearm violence from 1.4 to 1.9 per 1,000 between 2004 and 2005, but this is still way down from the rate of 5.9 per 1,000 in 1993. the picture for robbery is similar -- a significant increase over the previous year, but at levels far below those of the mid-1990s. similarly, i could discern few scary negative trends when looking at subgroup patterns (e.g., breaking the data down by race, gender, class, urban residence, and region).
robbery and firearm violence could be ugly harbingers, of course, but the overall picture is one of short-term stability and long-term decline in criminal victimization. while such national trends obscure lots of local variation -- i'd wager that victimization is up in many parts of my fair cities -- the high-quality ncvs data are giving us no indication that aggregate crime rates are spiraling out of control.
posted by christopher uggen @ 12:04 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Professor Uggen,
I am glad you show this data and the stagnation in crime. Its pretty clear that being tough on crime has really reduced criminal activity in the 1990s and current decade. I hope our politicians listen to you and eek out hard punishment for the criminals in society. With DNA profiling on the MAOA and other genes, I think we will be able to reduce crime by identifying potential suspects with mandatory testing. Removing these guys from circulation through incapacitation and preventing them from trying to corrupt our democracy through voting and earnings penalties will conserve our democracy for future generations.
Robert Gibson
Robert, with such great ideas and such a clear understanding of the crime problem and their potential solutions, you should run for office yourself. You could then implement your “mandatory testing”, keep the streets even safer and conserve democracy.
hmmm. i suppose this would be a good time to repeat my position that mass incarceration is an inefficient means of reducing crime. incarcerating millions may affect crime, but i think we are incarcerating too many "false positives" these days (e.g., old fellas well past their dangerous years or, if you will, their criminal freshness date).
Chris,
Robert clearly has a good grasp of the issues and the causal impact of incarceration on crime, I suggest we defer to him.
I don't like locking people up, but Mr. Gibson's views raise a question I've been pondering:
Does social treatment of sex offenders worse than placing them in a 'work camp?'
Its a thought experiment, but applying rules similar to the "Geneva Convention" to released sex offenders could arguably leave them better off in terms of defined rights, treatment, and safety. It would at least help to ensure constant work and could give a set of limited rights and movement. The public would probably go with sex offenders being placed in large areas secured by wire and manned with machine gun nests. Camps could be mandated to break even financially. It may be sound evil, but it might be a more honest reflection of where American society is at in 'durable punishment' [to steal from Tilly]
Post a Comment
<< Home