posted
Evidently, US murder rates have been dropping not because their are fewer assults but because emergency medical care has improved.
quote:"The level of violence from assaults in America has risen dramatically over the past 40 to 50 years at the same time that guns have become more lethal and available," Harris says. "But because of the vast improvements in the nation’s access to and quality of emergency medical care – particularly since the Vietnam War – the outcome of these assaults is far less likely to be lethal."
"People who would have ended up in morgues 20 years ago, are now simply treated and released by a hospital, often in a matter of a few days," Harris says. "And people who would have faced the death penalty 20 years ago are now simply guilty of felonious assault, treated and released by prisons, often in a matter of a few years."
I find this very disturbing. The difference between "Capital Punishment" and two years in jail could well be how fast the paramedics get to the scene of the crime. What should be the impact of this on law enforcement?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The level of violence from assaults in America has risen dramatically over the past 40 to 50 years at the same time that guns have become more lethal and available,"
Would be nice to have access to the actual study rather than a synopsis, but I suspect the above quote is going to draw the most questions. For instance, how do they know that guns are more readilly available now than 70 yrs a go? Is the increase in aggravated assault due to the increased ownership of guns or due to increased amounts of stress on the individual and family? Due to anomie? A larger percentage of urban dwellers (people packed in tightly together)? Due to increased number of Mormons? Television?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: From 1967 to 1986, the number of handguns owned in the U.S. increased by 173%;
"Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?"
This page is just wicked cool. This will show you the rise in violent crimes by decade and crime. For instance, aggravated assault went from 154,320 in 1960 to 910,744 in 2000 with the high being 1,135,610 in 1993. Rapes went from 17,190 in 1960 to 90,186 in 2000 and a high of 109,060 in 1992. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
quote: The United States Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants went from 1,887.2 in 1960 to 5,897.8 in 1996. By 1996 the crime rate was 313% the 1960 crime rate. In 1996 your risk of being a victim of a crime in the United States was 5.079%, and of a violent crime 0.634%. In 1960 these rates were 1.89% of being a victim of a crime and 0.161% of becoming victim of a violent crime. Our Index of Crime Statistics cover the period from 1960 to 2000. They cover the total reported crime, and compare population to the total crime reported by Index. Categories include Property, Murder, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated assault, Burglary, Larceny-theft, and Vehicle theft
I couldn't readily find how many guns there were 70 years ago and how many there are today and my brain is foggy, so I'll try later.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We were just talking about this in my current studies class the other day. Very interesting study, and although we put some thought into the question that you are asking, basically the answer is nothing. You have to base your sentences on what happened to the person in the situation, not on what would have happened if it was 50 years ago.
posted
I personally think that there are two obvious factors in the increase in crime:
1) The culture of irresponsibility. This is the ridiculous attitude fed and nurtured in our courts that the guy who did something wrong is the victim. His mom didn't give him enough hugs or McDonald's food made him do it.
2) Broken criminal justice system: guilt or innocence is not even at issue much of the time. It is a matter of technicalities in evidence gathering or testimony or other procedural issues. A slick lawyer can get just about anybody off.
Add that to the fact that rather than centers of rehabilitation our prisons are breeding grounds for deeper corruption and we can see the source of an increasing cycle of criminality.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here in Brazil (I know the thread is about U.S. but...) we're facing the same problem. The violence rates are increasing dramatically. Our Senate is voting a new law prohibiting civilian people to own guns. There is a big media campaign in favor of the law. If you have a gun, even unregistered, you can go to a police station and trade it with children toys and stuff like that. In about 1 year having a gun will be serious trouble over here.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eduardo- sadly I doubt that the gun control legislation in Brazil will have any positive effect. The people who own the guns generally don't buy them legally anyway, and since they are thieves, robbers and murderers what do they care if owning a gun is also against the law?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to tell you the truth, I don't think it will work either (well...sometimes it may work: yesterday a child died here in Rio because he was playing with his father's .45), but it is worth trying, I guess.
Most people seems to be excited about the new gun control law.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The difference between "Capital Punishment" and two years in jail could well be how fast the paramedics get to the scene of the crime. What should be the impact of this on law enforcement?
What exactly are you asking here? Are you meaning the impact of CRIMINAL JUSTICE instead of impact of law enforcement? Law enforcement at the scene would not change much -- they often don't know if a victim is going to live or die when working the scene.
Farmgirl (daughter of a cop)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This article is misleading - it suggests that violent crime is on the increase right now, which isn't actually supported by the most recent data (see Kayla's links). The article points out that violent crime has vastly increased over the last 40 years, which is absolutely true. However, it fails to mention that in the last 10 years, they have been on a steady decline. This decline includes not only the murder rate, but also most of the other categories of violent crime.
What this means is that their conclusion is flawed. Crime WAS on the increase from 1960 to 1990, but it has been on the decrease from 1990 to the present. This is not due just to improved medical care because it is consistent across all categories of violent crime - not just murders.
So, the data really isn't that distrubing at all. Right now, we are headed in the right direction. We just haven't come near to reaching the point we were at 60 years ago.
posted
Actually, Rabbit, I never answered your question. I've always had a problem with that particular part of the law. Until this study, my beef with it though was based mostly on stupidity and luck. Like the difference in sentencing for a DUI as opposed to vehicular manslaughter is mainly luck. The only difference between someone getting stopped for a DUI and killing someone with their car while drunk is seriously a matter of luck. And if someone is trying to kill you and they are too stupid to do it correctly, they shouldn't be charged with aggravated assault or even attempted murder, they should be charged with murder. Though in this link, you can see why, in Georgia, at least, they don't try people for attempted murder.
Actually, I think if you are trying to kill someone and screw it up, instead of getting half the sentence (like they do in Georgia) they should get double the sentence. The regular sentence for the crime they were trying to commit and the extra time for being stupid. So, like the Georgia example, if a 20 year/life sentence is the norm for murder, attempted murder would get the 20/life for the murder part and another 20/life for the "attempted but too stupid to do it correctly" part. Of course, I have a real dark streak, so. . . Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the general trend that we are increasing in population, and as the population increases, the number of people you encounter increases, and the chances of arguing/being angry with that person increases, and thus the violent crime rate increases. Also, periodic trends in the economy also cause changes in violent crime. More poverty (recession/depression), more crime overall and more violent crime. The 90's were a time of unprecedented growth in the economy, so it's tough to gauge the crime statistics for that time.(this is considering the entire 90's - obviously the first year or two wasn't the greatest for the economy)
I'm not sure if the report takes into account if violent crime is reported or not, and if the non reporting of violent crime is a mostly constant percentage. I'm not even sure how you would tell...
posted
There are groups who report on how much crime is going unreported broken down by category. I don't know where to find one online, but there is a pretty conclusive one that comes out each year. It also involves interesting categories such as the public view of how much crime is going on and a fear of crime ratio. Interesting stuff if someone finds it.
The increase in population theory is pretty bogus. Crime does go up in overcrowded areas, but its small spikes spread out across the nation. It doesn't add up to anything able to influence the national crime rates.
More people=more crimes doesn't work because crime rates are per 100,000 people. So it doesn't matter how many people exist that year.
Your comments about the economy affecting crime are absolutely true, and could be seen as a reason for the drop in crime during the nineties. As of right now there is no way to tell if that's the case or not. We will have to wait a few years and compare economic conditions and crime rates after the nineties. I can tell you that in 2002 crime rates continued to drop despite the economic recession, so that is good news and may indicate that we are doing something right.
I think she meant criminal justice system farmgirl, at least thats the way I took it. If she meant law enforcement than I'm afraid I don't understand the question either.
While on many dark and sinister levels (which make up 90% of my mind) I agree with you kayla, and think it would be wonderful to lock people away for attempted murder as if it were murder, I just don't think that's possible. You can't sentence someone for something they didn't do. The distinctions between classes of assualt and murder are there for a reason. Even though those reasons may be completely distorted by the faults in the court system today, they make sense in theory. Too bad we can't find a way to make them work correctly in the real world.
Yes, many things are a difference in luck. It sucks. A guy driving down the road and fiddling with his radio may drift off to the shoulder just a little bit. 99% of the time it won't matter, he looks up and corrects himself and keeps driving. But then a guy does it and accidentally hits a guy walking along the shoulder a little close to the road. Should that guy really go to jail for murder than involuntary manslaughter? I want to say yes, he should for being stupid and causing the situation to happen, but I think the answer is no.
It's kinda like how you can't relieve a cop of duty for split-second syndrome (unless the situation gets press coverage and then you are required to fire him or else the public will assume you are even dirtier cops than they already thought you were).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
