Something you should know about the method of data collection: In the UK, a death only counts as a homicide for statistical purposes once a person has been convicted of the homicide.
In the United States, about 65% of homicides result in an arrest, and 44% of arrests result in convictions. That means that less than 30% of homicides in the US result in convictions. This would yield a comparable homicide rate between the US and UK.
Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple, at least in recent years.
For the 2008/2009 record-keeping period, there were 670 “offenses first recorded”. Then, at some point, for some reason that the document does not adequately explain, 19 of those offenses were marked down as “not being homicides” – no reason, no acquittal, and no real rational for this downgrade is mentioned. That 651 number is the one they used to create the 1.2% rate for 2009.
In addition to those 19 homicides that apparently did not happen, in 21 murders, the individuals under suspicion were acquitted, and of the 651 remaining homicides, only 271 had cases that resulted in convictions so far.
Once-Great Britain unquestionably plays fast and loose with their statistics, they intentionally make it complicated to figure out how they are jiggering the numbers. I may go back and add in the “no longer recorded as homicide” numbers just to see how it affects things.
And the verdict is “makes the intercept about a year earlier and about 0.1% higher”. I figure I might as well beat them to death with the numbers they publish as they publish them .
In the pro-gun community, we harp on (justifiably) about the decline in murder rate since the mid-90s, and how it coincides with increases in gun ownership – thus debunking “more guns = more crime”.
Can anybody offer insight about the INCREASE in murder rate in the late-60s & early-70s from the same chart?
What happened about then? Can any events of the time be causally-linked to the increase in murder rate?
@ Sendarius: Tom beat me to it, but I will weigh in as well. The general consensus is that the increased drug trade and the beginnings of the War Against Drugs (and all of their associated problems, when put together) accounts for most of that increase, and then you throw in the civil rights movement of the era, the wars we found ourselves in overseas and the dissatisfaction they created at home, and a general increase in urbanization, and you seem to cover most of the bases. Honestly, though, from what reading I have done, there seems to be a lot of speculation but not a lot of hard data, which only makes sense, considering that most of the data from the time is only available on hardcopies, and who wants to dig through all of that?
@ Tom O’B: Drugs, in and of themselves, probably were not the cause, but the “war” fought around them certainly did not help.
random quotes
“Yes, people have a right to life and gun control is a plausible means of preserving innocent life but when put to the test it failed to live up to it's promise. It's time to end the experiments.” by Joe Huffman
Something you should know about the method of data collection: In the UK, a death only counts as a homicide for statistical purposes once a person has been convicted of the homicide.
In the United States, about 65% of homicides result in an arrest, and 44% of arrests result in convictions. That means that less than 30% of homicides in the US result in convictions. This would yield a comparable homicide rate between the US and UK.
Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple, at least in recent years.
For the 2008/2009 record-keeping period, there were 670 “offenses first recorded”. Then, at some point, for some reason that the document does not adequately explain, 19 of those offenses were marked down as “not being homicides” – no reason, no acquittal, and no real rational for this downgrade is mentioned. That 651 number is the one they used to create the 1.2% rate for 2009.
In addition to those 19 homicides that apparently did not happen, in 21 murders, the individuals under suspicion were acquitted, and of the 651 remaining homicides, only 271 had cases that resulted in convictions so far.
Once-Great Britain unquestionably plays fast and loose with their statistics, they intentionally make it complicated to figure out how they are jiggering the numbers. I may go back and add in the “no longer recorded as homicide” numbers just to see how it affects things.
And the verdict is “makes the intercept about a year earlier and about 0.1% higher”. I figure I might as well beat them to death with the numbers they publish as they publish them
.
In the pro-gun community, we harp on (justifiably) about the decline in murder rate since the mid-90s, and how it coincides with increases in gun ownership – thus debunking “more guns = more crime”.
Can anybody offer insight about the INCREASE in murder rate in the late-60s & early-70s from the same chart?
What happened about then? Can any events of the time be causally-linked to the increase in murder rate?
@ Sendarius:
The baby boomer generation discovered drugs and entered the prime age range for committing crime.
@ Sendarius: Tom beat me to it, but I will weigh in as well. The general consensus is that the increased drug trade and the beginnings of the War Against Drugs (and all of their associated problems, when put together) accounts for most of that increase, and then you throw in the civil rights movement of the era, the wars we found ourselves in overseas and the dissatisfaction they created at home, and a general increase in urbanization, and you seem to cover most of the bases. Honestly, though, from what reading I have done, there seems to be a lot of speculation but not a lot of hard data, which only makes sense, considering that most of the data from the time is only available on hardcopies, and who wants to dig through all of that?
@ Tom O’B: Drugs, in and of themselves, probably were not the cause, but the “war” fought around them certainly did not help.