2016 Number of Homicides in Detroit: 302

[Bham1982]

It seems to me that if one makes a comparison between one place and another, and says "I like that result better", it then follows that you would look at what that place does differently.

Or, you may look at the demographic differences, given that the crazy-high U.S. homicide rate is an outlier strictly because of a U.S.-specific demographic.

For the moment, keeping the comparison within the US, we would find that 70% of the 'safest' cities in the US. are in the west, with the largest number in California.

This was not always the case. What's changed?

No, this was always the case. Nothing changed.

If you're asking "why does the Western U.S. generally have lower homicide rates than the Eastern U.S."? the answer is demographic differences. Homicides rates are almost exactly correlated with % African American and there are few such communities in the American West.

Gun control is definitely one part of the answer.

Agreed.

The vast majority of high-violence urban areas in the US also have extreme poverty, high unemployment etc.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, that violence is almost always disproportionate to the poorest parts of town.

No. It's race, not poverty. Hispanic Americans are poorer than African Americans but much lower homicide rates. In many big cities like NYC and SF Asians are poorer than blacks but homicide rates among Asians is almost 0.

Poorest areas of the U.S., like Texas borderlands, parts of the Dakotas, West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, tend to have low murder rates. Only exception would be Delta Mississippi, which is overwhelmingly African American.

In a California that has both had a broadly prospering economy, but also one which has shared more of that wealth in higher minimum wages, paid sick days, family leave etc. There is simply less 'extreme' poverty.

The most extreme inequality in the U.S. is actually in Coastal CA and NYC. Both areas also have low murder and low overall crime rates. Manhattan, which has the most extreme inequality in the U.S., has a lower murder rate than Toronto.

You really think stuff like family leave drives murder rates? I'm sorry, but that premise is just so very Canadian.

L.A has seen a 75% or more reduction in homicides from peak-levels a few decades back.

It took 20 or more years to achieve that. But they did; Detroit can too.

LA basically eviscerated the black ghettos of the 1980's. There are no such neighborhoods left. They're all Mexican or gentrified now. Watts/South Central went from 100% black to 90% Mexican, and murder rate plummeted.

Yes, if Detroit eliminates depressed black neighborhoods, it will massively reduce the murder rate. I don't think an ethnic cleansing platform will gain much traction, though.

[Johnnny5]

Gun control is definitely one part of the answer.

California's laws are nearly as tough as Canada's, and that is mostly a function of changes over the last 2 decades or so.

But it surely does not account for all, and perhaps not a majority of the difference.

The vast majority of high-violence urban areas in the US also have extreme poverty, high unemployment etc.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, that violence is almost always disproportionate to the poorest parts of town.

In a California that has both had a broadly prospering economy, but also one which has shared more of that wealth in higher minimum wages, paid sick days, family leave etc. There is simply less 'extreme' poverty.

Of course, it still exists, as does violent crime.

But there is little question of correlation.

When people have hope; and when they have something to lose, crime declines.

****

Except that California's overall murder rate is not much different than that of Michigan's [[Only a 1/100,000 difference with California's 2015 rates at 4.8 per 100,000 compared to Michigan's 5.8) Both have been trending downward over the last decade at about the same rate. This while California's gun laws have become far more restrictive and Michigan's less restrictive.

Most places in Michigan are very safe. It's the insane concentration of violence we see in our majority black urban areas that prevents Michigan from being one of the safest states in the nation. Remove Detroit and Flint and Michigan goes from being among the most violent states in the nation, to among the safest.

[Canadian Visitor]

O

If you're asking "why does the Western U.S. generally have lower homicide rates than the Eastern U.S."? the answer is demographic differences. Homicides rates are almost exactly correlated with % African American and there are few such communities in the American West.

The most extreme inequality in the U.S. is actually in Coastal CA and NYC. Both areas also have low murder and low overall crime rates. Manhattan, which has the most extreme inequality in the U.S., has a lower murder rate than Toronto.

You really think stuff like family leave drives murder rates? I'm sorry, but that premise is just so very Canadian.

LA basically eviscerated the black ghettos of the 1980's. There are no such neighborhoods left. They're all Mexican or gentrified now. Watts/South Central went from 100% black to 90% Mexican, and murder rate plummeted.

Yes, if Detroit eliminates depressed black neighborhoods, it will massively reduce the murder rate. I don't think an ethnic cleansing platform will gain much traction, though.

So during the period where murders in L.A. decreased by 75%..... what happened to the black community again?

Cause you made me look it up.

It turns out it grew by 3%.

While much slower than growth in the Hispanic and Asian demographics, that could not reasonably be described as 'ethnic cleansing' .

Nor do I recall anyone in LA or California winning office on such a platform.

Now, there is a grain of truth in what you said, in so far as the black population of south-central LA did decline.

But on balance, those folks who left remained in southern California, and often in Los Angeles.

If the community there began 'integrating' more; then surely that is not ethnic cleansing, but a sign of increased opportunity and social acceptance.

The only demographic to have experienced outright decline in California in the last 30 years is non-Hispanic whites.

*****

I find your use of race here to be quite disturbing.

No doubt there is some correlation; but you seem dedicated to gross over-reach.

If we looked at homicide rates by State, and compared them with those found demographics.

Oklahoma and Indiana are in the upper 1/2 of homicide rates as least safe. Neither have exceptionally large black populations, so far as I'm aware.

California in the aggregate is middle of the pack.

***

One could just as easily look at social policy and ask 'Which states have social policies that are 'progressive'.

For our purposes, we'll use paid sick days, higher than average min. wage as 2 obvious measures.

The compare those with the crime numbers.

In the bottom 10 states for homicide rates, we have three states that meet my progressive requirement. [[Vermont, Mass. and Oregon)

Expand the list to 15 and you add Washington for 4.

While going to 20 adds Conn. for 5.

Notable here is that is the vast majority of states who met my progressive policy standard.

That too is correlation, not causation. But surely there is a relationship.

All 10 states with the highest homicide rates also correlate to predominately Republican controlled governments, low min. wages and no paid sick days.

[Wesley Mouch]

Thankfully Detroit didn't experience the significant increase in homicides that other cities saw in 2016. Still 302 is shockingly high for a supposed first world country. Yes, I'm well aware of demographics and all the other issues that contribute to it, but it still remains [[as it should) a terrible and outrageous situation.

Any guesses as to why we've been on the mend? CAY's integration of the police dept.? We had our BLM outrage with Nevers/Budzyn 20 years ago? or?

[ABetterDetroit]

Without trying to minimize the fact that 300 homicides is a lot of homicides, and that they represent both a societal failure and a tragedy for many specific people, it is perfectly possible to live and even thrive in such an environment.

Homicides are not evenly distributed. There are subgroups of people with very high chances of being killed, which keeps the number of homicides high, but the majority of people in the city have a minimal chance of being killed. It is fairly easy for those people to go about their lives more-or-less unaffected.

Most businesses don't really have any reason to expect that their employees will be killed either. Certainly there are well-publicized cases where that does happen, especially where employees are serving the general public in insecure locations, but it isn't a common thing that you would expect to substantially affect the ability of most businesses to function.

Murder gets a lot of publicity because it is tends to be reported, is relatively unambiguous, and therefore is easy to count, but my impression is that what really causes most people and businesses problems with being in the city is the larger number of lesser but still serious crimes, like burglary, car theft, and armed robbery, which while still far too common, fortunately mostly seem to be falling.

I completely disagree with your opinion on business. For decades the #1 known thing about Detroit across the country is that it is a very violent city. A reputation like that is awful for business. One only has to look at the evidence of the forward progress of the local economy over the last 50 years in comparison to almost anywhere else.

It has only been in the last 5 years that the city has started to beat that reputation down with some success and be known for a variety of other things. It will not last for long if this tragedy continues. Detroit's reputation is in a precarious position, especially with other cities having the same problem worsening, it just puts the issue under a stronger magnifying glass. If commerce starts to flee from those areas like it did Detroit years ago for the very same reason, It surely will not come here when the problem is worse than ever on a per capita basis.

[mwilbert]

I completely disagree with your opinion on business. For decades the #1 known thing about Detroit across the country is that it is a very violent city. A reputation like that is awful for business. One only has to look at the evidence of the forward progress of the local economy over the last 50 years in comparison to almost anywhere else.

It has only been in the last 5 years that the city has started to beat that reputation down with some success and be known for a variety of other things. It will not last for long if this tragedy continues. Detroit's reputation is in a precarious position, especially with other cities having the same problem worsening, it just puts the issue under a stronger magnifying glass. If commerce starts to flee from those areas like it did Detroit years ago for the very same reason, It surely will not come here when the problem is worse than ever on a per capita basis.

Either I misunderstood your original point or you misunderstood mine. I thought you were saying you didn't understand how businesses could operate with this number of homicides, and I explained why I didn't think it was much of a problem. This is different from saying that the number of homicides isn't a problem for attracting businesses, which I would agree is true. These are two very different problems.

Separately, it seems fair to point out that, even with this level of homicides, Detroit's reputation has clearly been improving for some time now, and the city has been able to attract businesses in a way that it had not been able to for some decades previously.

[clubboss]

It's abhorrent. Sickening. A continuous Disaster.

1 for every 2300 citizens in one year's time. How can a child live, learn, have hope for the future in that environment? How can businesses grow or even exist with that kind of fear?

We are supposed to be one of the most advanced society's on earth. That figure proves we are not.

Discuss.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...ides/96134646/

Arm yourself, I do
Colt 9 11 Government model, Hydra-Shok ammo

[Bham1982]

Arm yourself, I do
Colt 9 11 Government model, Hydra-Shok ammo

I'm continually amazed that Americans feel "safer" when they have deadly firearms in their homes.

Let's flood the country with even more and more deadly weaponry, and that will finally cut crime and everyone will feel safe when everyone is packing heat. Um, no...

[oladub]

What may be done to achieve a very much lower homicide rate in Detroit?

Allow for the development of large, eg. 5,000-50,000 resident, gated communities in which residents could provide themselves an enhance level of security, safe [[private?) schools, etc. while adding to the City tax base. Consider that any apartment building or condominium requiring a key to enter the lobby is already a gated community if you object to the term 'gated community'. A corollary idea is to give huge tracts of land to police, fire fighter, and teacher unions at a discount to make up for pension debts that the City cannot afford to pay. There is precedent for such an arrangement. The Romans used to give retired legionnaires large tracts of land along unsecured borders and the US government gave large tracts of land to railroad companies in return for building a rail line across the country.

[Honky Tonk]

What may be done to achieve a very much lower homicide rate in Detroit?

Do what the City does with it's crime stats, cook the books.

[Hermod]

All 10 states with the highest homicide rates also correlate to predominately Republican controlled governments, low min. wages and no paid sick days.

As noted, you can't compare state-by-state since homicide rates vary by area within the state. As noted above, Detroit and Flint drive the rate dramatically upward for Michigan. Gary, Hammond, and Michigan City drive the rate upward for Indiana, and Chicago drives the rate upward for Illinois. All three states have Republican governors but the really bad places in those states are strongly Democrat.

[Canadian Visitor]

As noted, you can't compare state-by-state since homicide rates vary by area within the state. As noted above, Detroit and Flint drive the rate dramatically upward for Michigan. Gary, Hammond, and Michigan City drive the rate upward for Indiana, and Chicago drives the rate upward for Illinois. All three states have Republican governors but the really bad places in those states are strongly Democrat.

True.....

However, the issue isn't the political persuasion of those who live in high crime areas.

Its the policy regime under which they live.

Which in the states cited is largely controlled by Republicans and in corollary there political ideals.

A democratic predominance in Detroit does not give residents paid sick days or a higher min. wage or even useful gun control.

Those things are largely affected at the State level of government [[and to a lesser degree, a federal one).

I should add the argument is not politically partisan. I'm Canadian, not Democrat, or Republican.

Within my own country I am politically independent.

There is, however, a relationship in many, but not all states between social policy/gun control and the party in power.

[Bham1982]

A democratic predominance in Detroit does not give residents paid sick days or a higher min. wage or even useful gun control.

Again, except for gun control, this stuff doesn't matter. You aren't going to lower homicide rates through social welfare measures [[though there are plenty of other good reasons to implement such measures).

Canada has a low murder rate relative to the U.S. because it doesn't have the demographic that accounts for the U.S. murder rate. It isn't like U.S. whites and Asians have much higher murder rates than Canadian whites and Asians.

[ABetterDetroit]

What may be done to achieve a very much lower homicide rate in Detroit?

This is the most important question in this tread.

A lot of research has been done on the 'why' it is happening but it hasn't produced a effective change in the procedures that change the statistics.

What could be done within the existing structure of law immediately would be to introduce a zero tolerance policy on gun crimes. Make it well known with a advertising campaign that if anyone breaks the law in possession of a firearm you will do serious time. If you are in possession of a illegal firearm or you cannot legally possess one, you will do serious time. Convicted felons cannot ever possess one again under any circumstances or they will return to prison under a life sentence if caught with a firearm. No bond or parole on gun crimes period.

Anyone that thinks the second amendment is going to be changed any time soon is delusional, the political will doesn't exist currently. Enforce the laws we have now strictly and harshly. Make it well known that Michigan is the not the state to be in if a illegal gun is a tool of your trade.

[Canadian Visitor]

Again, except for gun control, this stuff doesn't matter. You aren't going to lower homicide rates through social welfare measures [[though there are plenty of other good reasons to implement such measures).

Canada has a low murder rate relative to the U.S. because it doesn't have the demographic that accounts for the U.S. murder rate. It isn't like U.S. whites and Asians have much higher murder rates than Canadian whites and Asians.

Again, I think we need some clarification here.

According the Census, the Greater Toronto area is home to over 400,000 black Canadians.

Around 5% of the regional population.

Not exactly an absent demographic.

In fact, just over 1/2 the number in Detroit.

I would suggest to you, once again, the difference is in blacks living in extreme and concentrated poverty.

This is not non-existent in Canada, however, between healthcare, more robust low-income supports, greater mobility for those who don't own a car etc. Poverty by and large is less extreme and less concentrated than what is seen in the U.S. context.

Social supports do lower crime. They are certainly not the only factor at play, and perhaps not the largest either.

But they are a material one.

The fact of greater social mobility [[the chance to rise out of poverty in one generation); greater hope and opportunity for success, and more to lose if one goes to jail all make a difference.

As, of course, do gun control, effective policing, the broader community culture.

I think your simply to dismissive of evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

[clubboss]

This is the most important question in this tread.

A lot of research has been done on the 'why' it is happening but it hasn't produced a effective change in the procedures that change the statistics.

What could be done within the existing structure of law immediately would be to introduce a zero tolerance policy on gun crimes. Make it well known with a advertising campaign that if anyone breaks the law in possession of a firearm you will do serious time. If you are in possession of a illegal firearm or you cannot legally possess one, you will do serious time. Convicted felons cannot ever possess one again under any circumstances or they will return to prison under a life sentence if caught with a firearm. No bond or parole on gun crimes period.

Anyone that thinks the second amendment is going to be changed any time soon is delusional, the political will doesn't exist currently. Enforce the laws we have now strictly and harshly. Make it well known that Michigan is the not the state to be in if a illegal gun is a tool of your trade.

In December 1976, billboards and bumper stickers went up around Michigan proclaiming “One with gun gets you two”. A quasi tough new law sentencing individuals to two years in prison for committing a felony with a firearm; this two-year sentence was to be run consecutively [[as opposed to concurrently) to whatever other felonies the little darlings were facing. The Wayne county prosecutor at the time – William Callahan – declared publicly that there would be no plea bargaining on this new gun law. Initially, prosecutors did follow the letter of the law.
This law has had ZERO impact on crime in one of America’s poorest and most violent cities.
Today in Detroit, the lawyers, police, and judges, serve up a buffet of uneven and convoluted sentences regarding this gun law, including probation.
And this was only a two-year sentence.
There are already more than enough laws on the books.
This has been “researched” to death.
To ratify an Amendment would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, if that occurred, a letter of notification would then be sent to each Governor. The proposed amendment would then be sent to their respective state legislatures, or the states would call for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. 38 out of 50 states must be in agreement for it to be enacted. History has shown that some state legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before acting on a proposed amendment.
Other option is a Constitution Convention, however, none of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution were proposed by Constitutional Convention.
Good Luck

[Bham1982]

In December 1976, billboards and bumper stickers went up around Michigan proclaiming “One with gun gets you two”. A quasi tough new law sentencing individuals to two years in prison for committing a felony with a firearm; this two-year sentence was to be run consecutively [[as opposed to concurrently) to whatever other felonies the little darlings were facing. The Wayne county prosecutor at the time – William Callahan – declared publicly that there would be no plea bargaining on this new gun law. Initially, prosecutors did follow the letter of the law.
This law has had ZERO impact on crime in one of America’s poorest and most violent cities.

I doubt any of this is true. Could you source any of this, please?

NYC, since instituting mandatory minimums for gun possession, has seen gun-related crime plummet, and NYPD reports that thugs are much less likely to be carrying, simply because the threat of mandatory incarceration is too great.

There is plenty of scholarship indicating that stricter gun control has a determinative affect on gun-related crime.

Other option is a Constitution Convention, however, none of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution were proposed by Constitutional Convention.
Good Luck

Has zero to do with the Constitution. There is absolutely no Constitutional issue with stricter gun regulation.

[Bham1982]

Again, I think we need some clarification here.

According the Census, the Greater Toronto area is home to over 400,000 black Canadians.

We aren't talking about "blacks". We're talking about African Americans. Canada doesn't have African Americans.

Canadian blacks are immigrant blacks, and have much lower homicide rates, just as immigrant blacks to the U.S. have much lower homicide rates.

West Indians, West Africans and the like have murder rates similar to other U.S. immigrant groups. They aren't major sources for gun-related crime.

This is not non-existent in Canada, however, between healthcare, more robust low-income supports, greater mobility for those who don't own a car etc. Poverty by and large is less extreme and less concentrated than what is seen in the U.S. context.

Social supports do lower crime. They are certainly not the only factor at play, and perhaps not the largest either.

I don't think social supports are entirely irrelevant, but, yeah, I think they're largely irrelevant. Dirt poor parts of the U.S., with absolute crap social services, such as West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, the Texas borderlands, have low homicide rates. Chicago and Cleveland and St. Louis and Detroit, with relatively strong social supports, have crazy high homicide rates.

Canada doesn't have particularly robust social supports for First World standards, and is more alike the U.S. than different, with relatively high social and economic inequality and relatively minimal social welfare net. We aren't talking Denmark here.

[clubboss]

I doubt any of this is true. Could you source any of this, please?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1044077...n_tab_contents

Are you referring to the "one w/ gun gets two"?
I clearly remember the law and billboards

[Bham1982]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1044077...n_tab_contents

Are you referring to the "one w/ gun gets two"?
I clearly remember the law and billboards

I'm not old enough to be around then, but the sourced article clearly states "there was little change in the certainty or severity of sentences that could be attributed to the effects of the gun law".

In other words, there was no material change re. sentencing.

[ABetterDetroit]

In December 1976, billboards and bumper stickers went up around Michigan proclaiming “One with gun gets you two”. A quasi tough new law sentencing individuals to two years in prison for committing a felony with a firearm; this two-year sentence was to be run consecutively [[as opposed to concurrently) to whatever other felonies the little darlings were facing. The Wayne county prosecutor at the time – William Callahan – declared publicly that there would be no plea bargaining on this new gun law. Initially, prosecutors did follow the letter of the law.
This law has had ZERO impact on crime in one of America’s poorest and most violent cities.
Today in Detroit, the lawyers, police, and judges, serve up a buffet of uneven and convoluted sentences regarding this gun law, including probation.
And this was only a two-year sentence.
There are already more than enough laws on the books.
This has been “researched” to death.
To ratify an Amendment would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, if that occurred, a letter of notification would then be sent to each Governor. The proposed amendment would then be sent to their respective state legislatures, or the states would call for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. 38 out of 50 states must be in agreement for it to be enacted. History has shown that some state legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before acting on a proposed amendment.
Other option is a Constitution Convention, however, none of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution were proposed by Constitutional Convention.
Good Luck

I am a little confused also. As a responsible 'legal gun owner' you are against stricter enforcement of EXISTING firearm laws, for example felons in possession of firearms?

[Canadian Visitor]

I don't think social supports are entirely irrelevant, but, yeah, I think they're largely irrelevant. Dirt poor parts of the U.S., with absolute crap social services, such as West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, the Texas borderlands, have low homicide rates. Chicago and Cleveland and St. Louis and Detroit, with relatively strong social supports, have crazy high homicide rates.

Canada doesn't have particularly robust social supports for First World standards, and is more alike the U.S. than different, with relatively high social and economic inequality and relatively minimal social welfare net. We aren't talking Denmark here.

On the former, I would suggest to you that those areas are rural poor, which means, by definition that the poverty isn't 'concentrated' and the crime rate must be compared only to other rural areas.

Urban crime is at least partially a function of 'stranger danger' which is to say people not knowing someone, or that they do or don't belong in an area.

As well as the critical mass of people necessary for gangs and for profitable crime of scale.

****

On the latter, I would concur Canada's social safety net is less robust than Norway or any of the Scandinavian countries.

But it is leaps and bounds more robust than the U.S.

When one looks at the gini co-efficient [[relative income equality); the U.S. is 100th in the world [[or 45th most unequal of 145 countries measured).

Canada is 36th or 109th most unequal.

Canada does rank more favourably than Spain or the U.K or Japan.

[canuck]

We aren't talking about "blacks". We're talking about African Americans. Canada doesn't have African Americans.

Canadian blacks are immigrant blacks, and have much lower homicide rates, just as immigrant blacks to the U.S. have much lower homicide rates.

West Indians, West Africans and the like have murder rates similar to other U.S. immigrant groups. They aren't major sources for gun-related crime.



I don't think social supports are entirely irrelevant, but, yeah, I think they're largely irrelevant. Dirt poor parts of the U.S., with absolute crap social services, such as West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, the Texas borderlands, have low homicide rates. Chicago and Cleveland and St. Louis and Detroit, with relatively strong social supports, have crazy high homicide rates.

Canada doesn't have particularly robust social supports for First World standards, and is more alike the U.S. than different, with relatively high social and economic inequality and relatively minimal social welfare net. We aren't talking Denmark here.

You aren't going to go Medieval on us Canuckistanis there bham, are ya?

[clubboss]

I am a little confused also. As a responsible 'legal gun owner' you are against stricter enforcement of EXISTING firearm laws, for example felons in possession of firearms?

No, that wasn’t my meaning. In fact, there are innumerable laws on the books dealing specifically with firearms being used in a crime by a convicted felon. Prosecutors have many tools [[charges) that they can, and initially often do utilize, when they file against felons in possession of a firearm, or a felon using a firearm during the commission of yet another crime. The charges end up being whittled down. The judges agree with all this – the final stamp of approval needed to get these incorrigible predators another reduced sentenced for the umpteenth time. Detroit prosecutors and judges are the ones that are solely responsible for deviating from the criminal code.
I mentioned the two-year minimum in regards to your comment:

If you are in possession of a illegal firearm or you cannot legally possess one, you will do serious time. Convicted felons cannot ever possess one again under any circumstances or they will return to prison under a life sentence if caught with a firearm. No bond or parole on gun crimes period.

I don’t agree with this, somewhere in between an unenforced two-year mandatory minimum, and a life sentence as you suggested, there is firm and fair sentencing.
Thankfully I have never in my life drawn my legally licensed firearm.

[ABetterDetroit]

The US and Canada are not comparable in terms of the social net

I think that a lot of it has to do with the generalization that your average Canadian is simply a lot nicer human being than your average American.

Americans are pretty hung up on economic or social status and seem to think that anyone beneath them is a lower level human being and the more of them that there are just reinforces their opinions of themselves as a better person. We seem to have a awful lot of admiration for people who's only accomplishment is accumulating wealth, like that is some sort of ruler for the measurement of the quality of someone's character.

Just a opinion.