2016 Number of Homicides in Detroit: 302

[Danny]

Still more brothers killing brothers in the ghettohoods in Detroit. And there will be more brothers killing brothers.

[rex]

Homicide is up and population is down. DPD can speak to crime numbers decreasing all they want but i find it hard to believe. Little if anything has improved in most of the city year over year. They did clean up the graffiti. Definitely makes me feel safer

[clubboss]

Still more brothers killing brothers in the ghettohoods in Detroit. And there will be more brothers killing brothers.

Danny, when perpetrators are looking for victims, they don’t give two shits about race, gender, or age. To suggest or expect more from a parasite, that is cross addicted, as well as, a dreg of society, is naïve. They aren’t going to wait for a Mexican or Caucasian victim, their demons are chasing them. To be fair, I apply the same rules if I’m confronted by a perp. I care not one iota as to their age, gender or race – I will stand my ground, and equally and fairly, apply deadly force to defend myself.

[erikd]

Poverty in the U.S. isn't heavily correlated with crime or homicide rates. The Bronx is significantly safer than, say, Boston or San Francisco, despite much higher poverty.

And while the Bronx is poor like Chicago and Detroit, it has relatively few African Americans compared to Chicago or Detroit. Most blacks in the Bronx are from West Indies or West Africa.

The only black-dominated part of the Bronx [[far NE Bronx) is mostly West Indian. The few majority black census tracts in parts of the South/Central Bronx are mostly West African. Most of the high poverty neighborhoods in the Bronx are a Hispanic blend of Puerto Rican, Dominican, and, more recently Mexican/Central American.

While I agree with your assessment that poverty rates are not to blame for crime rates, I strongly disagree with you assertion that racial makeup IS to blame for crime/homicide rates.

If the racial makeup of NYC is the reason why they have lower homicide rates than Detroit or Chicago, then why were the crime rates in NYC extremely high in the 70s-early 90s?

NYC had an astounding 2262 homicides in 1990. By 1998, the number of homicides in NYC dropped to 629, and it has continued to decline from there.

The racial makeup of NYC has little to do with the crime rates in NYC. NYC homicides dropped almost 75% in only 8 years, and it clearly had nothing to do with racial demographics.

[erikd]

IMO the high murder rate in Detroit isn't the result of easy access to guns [[Just about every farm kid in Michigan has unlimited and immediate access to firearms). It isn't due to high poverty or inequality [[Calcutta India has a murder rate that is 1/2 of Detroit's), and it isn't due to lax laws or prison sentences [[the U.S imprisons more people than any other nation on this planet, by far).

The cause and the focus should be on the breakdown of nuclear families, and specifically the absence of fathers in urban African American households. Today more than 70% of African Americans are born out of wedlock [[Compared to 25% of white Americans), and nearly 2/3rds of black children live in a household without their biological father present. Children that grow up without a father present are far more likely to end up in prison during their lifetimes [[Some studies show that nearly 90% of violent felons grew up in homes where their father was absent!).

Sadly, single parenting is becoming more acceptable throughout America, and it is the norm in Detroit. Yes, divorce and the loss of a spouse happens and of course raising great children in a one parent household is possible, but it's far from being ideal. Women that repeatedly choose to have children outside of a nuclear family need to be cognizant of the fact that they're putting their sons at a disadvantage that is likely follow them for their entire adult life [[If they are fortunate enough to make it that far).

It certainly seems reasonable to attribute crime rates to a breakdown of traditional nuclear family structures, but the facts simply do not support this assertion.

Contrary to popular belief, crime rates in America have been falling quite dramatically since the early/mid 90s, and have recently hit low levels that we haven't seen since the 50s/early 60s, even as the rates of unwed births have skyrocketed.

The homicide rate in America began to rise in the mid 60s, when it went from a 50s normal rate of 4-5 homicides per 100,000 to a rate of 8-10 in the 70s. The homicide rate in America peaked at 10.2 in 1980, and remained high for another decade, with a rate of 9.8 in 1991. Since 1991, the homicide rate in America has plummeted, down to the 5-6 range after 1998, and below 5 since 2010.

Over this same time period, the rate of children born to unwed mothers in America has increased dramatically.

In 1970, the homicide rate was 7.9, and the unwed birth rate was around 11%. In 1980, the homicide rate was 10.2, and the unwed birth rate was almost 20%. In 1990, the homicide rate was 9.4, and the unwed birth rate was at 30%. In 200, the homicide rate was 5.5, and the unwed birth rate was around 33%. By 2010, the homicide rate was down to 4.8, and the unwed birth rate was up to 41%.

There was a correlation between the increase in crime and the increase in births to unwed mothers in the period from the mid 60 to the 80s, which caused many people to assume that the rise in unwed mothers and children being born out of wedlock was responsible for the increase in crime. However, the fact that unwed childbirth has continued to rise significantly over the last 25 years, while crime rates have simultaneously fallen by nearly half, stands as evidence that the decline of traditional nuclear family households is not the primary factor in crime rates.

[erikd]

So what does this have to do with Detroit, since that should always be on our minds here. Not much directly, but how these non-career folks Trump's bringing in handle Detroit just might be quite different than the 'status quo' [[or even worse the inflammation of racial animus) we got from Obama. Trump seems like a breath of fresh air on race issues -- if we can just get the bigots on the left to realize that the old solutions didn't work -- and won't work. I think Detroit'll benefit from Trump & Co and his non-experts.

Please tell me you are kidding or being sarcastic here...

You think that Trump is a breath of fresh air on race relations, and Obama and the "bigots on the left" inflamed racial animosity?

I really want to hear your explanation of how Obama inflamed racial animosity, who you think the bigots on the left are, and what makes you think that Trump is a "breath of fresh air" on race issues.

I'm dead serious on this, because I can't fathom what you could possibly be talking about...

[clubboss]

Please tell me you are kidding or being sarcastic here...

You think that Trump is a breath of fresh air on race relations, and Obama and the "bigots on the left" inflamed racial animosity?

I really want to hear your explanation of how Obama inflamed racial animosity, who you think the bigots on the left are, and what makes you think that Trump is a "breath of fresh air" on race issues.

I'm dead serious on this, because I can't fathom what you could possibly be talking about...

Trump is a breath of air – to Neo-Nazi’s, Nazi’s, skinheads, puppets – intellectually challenged, and all the closet racists that kept their hateful thoughts to themselves. Trump has emboldened and awakened these malcontents – Heil Trump.
I am always deadly serious

[Bham1982]

While I agree with your assessment that poverty rates are not to blame for crime rates, I strongly disagree with you assertion that racial makeup IS to blame for crime/homicide rates.

I made no such assertion. I said that homicide rates are heavily correlated with % African American.

And I'm not "blaming" African Americans. They're the victims. I blame racism, extreme federal neglect of African American neighborhoods and issues, the stupid war on drugs and the decline of the African American family.

If the racial makeup of NYC is the reason why they have lower homicide rates than Detroit or Chicago, then why were the crime rates in NYC extremely high in the 70s-early 90s?

Your premise isn't true.

NYC had significantly lower crime/homicide rates than both Chicago and Detroit in previous decades.

But NYC had a much bigger African American population back then. Over the last 40 years, the African American population has largely been replaced by black West Indian and West African immigration, and the crime rate in those neighborhoods has plummeted. It isn't the only reason for the decreased crime, but it's a huge factor.

The racial makeup of NYC has little to do with the crime rates in NYC. NYC homicides dropped almost 75% in only 8 years, and it clearly had nothing to do with racial demographics.

Given that the massive homicide decline in NYC coincided with the huge 1990's era African American migration out of NYC, which also coincided with peak West Indian migration, I have no idea how you come to this conclusion. And given that the biggest homicide declines occurred in the neighborhoods with the biggest African American outmigration, I don't know how it's possible to argue against correlation.

Every single city in the U.S. with a high homicide rate has a high % African American population. No city with a low % African American has a high homicide rate. How can anyone argue against correlation [[NOT causation)?

[Johnnny5]

It certainly seems reasonable to attribute crime rates to a breakdown of traditional nuclear family structures, but the facts simply do not support this assertion.

Contrary to popular belief, crime rates in America have been falling quite dramatically since the early/mid 90s, and have recently hit low levels that we haven't seen since the 50s/early 60s, even as the rates of unwed births have skyrocketed.

A totally agree with you that violent crime rates have dramatically fallen in America even as out of wedlock birth rates have increased [[At least in most areas, unfortunately Detroit isn't really one of them). That being said, I wasn't trying to tie the increased rate of out of wedlock births and fatherless families to an increase/decrease in the rate of violent crime. My point was that the lack of nuclear families [[and specifically the lack of fathers) is responsible for the dramatic difference in violent crime rates between predominantly urban African American communities[[Like Detroit) and the rest of America. And that stark difference is something that's increased over the years, not decreased.

[erikd]

Your premise isn't true.

NYC had significantly lower crime/homicide rates than both Chicago and Detroit in previous decades.

But NYC had a much bigger African American population back then. Over the last 40 years, the African American population has largely been replaced by black West Indian and West African immigration, and the crime rate in those neighborhoods has plummeted. It isn't the only reason for the decreased crime, but it's a huge factor.

Given that the massive homicide decline in NYC coincided with the huge 1990's era African American migration out of NYC, which also coincided with peak West Indian migration, I have no idea how you come to this conclusion. And given that the biggest homicide declines occurred in the neighborhoods with the biggest African American outmigration, I don't know how it's possible to argue against correlation.

Every single city in the U.S. with a high homicide rate has a high % African American population. No city with a low % African American has a high homicide rate. How can anyone argue against correlation [[NOT causation)?

The black population of NYC grew from 2.103 million in 1990 to 2.130 million in 2000, as the crime plummeted dramatically.

These numbers do not distinguish between African Americans and West Indians, but I find it hard to believe that the outmigration of African Americans from NYC in the 1990s [[and replacement by non-African American blacks) was dramatic enough to cause a 75% rededication of homicide in only 8 years.

[clubboss]

The black population of NYC grew from 2.103 million in 1990 to 2.130 million in 2000, as the crime plummeted dramatically.

These numbers do not distinguish between African Americans and West Indians, but I find it hard to believe that the outmigration of African Americans from NYC in the 1990s [[and replacement by non-African American blacks) was dramatic enough to cause a 75% rededication of homicide in only 8 years.

Dinkins – 1/1990 – 12/1993, under his Safe Streets - Safe City program, crime starting dropping dramatically and consistently under his administration. Followed by Giuliani [[1/1994 – 12/2001), even more “focused” policing went into effect. Additionally, the roaring economy, and the hiring of several thousand police officers also contributed to a turnaround in a city that was unprecedented in modern times. Mayor Koch also receives a mention in laying some of the groundwork for Dinkins.

I will assert Bham is correct in his demographic theory, his position is cited in several of the papers I’ve read. In the same breath, there are several reasons cited that contributed to that city’s turnaround.

Detroit is sorely lacking in police officers, and policing infrastructure. Non-emergency calls – burglary’s in progress – are all but ignored. The same reason has been given for years, there are far too many violent felonies in progress to address all the thief’s that rob merchants blind. While the majority of these criminals are dimwitted, they are fully aware they have at least 20 minutes [[usually much longer) to ransack businesses, many times the same business has been hit over and over again.
I rarely hear burglary in process calls on my scanner.

[Wesley Mouch]

The black population of NYC grew from 2.103 million in 1990 to 2.130 million in 2000, as the crime plummeted dramatically.

These numbers do not distinguish between African Americans and West Indians, but I find it hard to believe that the outmigration of African Americans from NYC in the 1990s [[and replacement by non-African American blacks) was dramatic enough to cause a 75% rededication of homicide in only 8 years.

I doubt it too -- but I also doubt that crime rates are linear. Part of the great 'broken windows' theory argues that one crime encourages others. So it may be that concentration of a demographic with significant crime rate might see a disproportionate increase in crime.

[Bham1982]

Please tell me you are kidding or being sarcastic here...

You think that Trump is a breath of fresh air on race relations, and Obama and the "bigots on the left" inflamed racial animosity?

If you're a white supremacist, this all makes perfect sense. Many [[most?) Trump voters have white supremacist tendencies. They think Obama was "divisive" because he sought equal rights for all. I mean, treating gays like human beings? Fighting police brutality? Working for women's equal pay? They didn't do this pansy libtard stuff in the good old days.

Why do you think Trump kicked off his campaign with the infamous "Mexicans are murderers and rapists" campaign speech? Why do you think he repeatedly cast doubt on Obama's citizenship and legitimacy? Why do you think he was fixated on BLM, "urban problems", "the Muslim issue", "building a wall" and "making America great again"?.

It's all codespeak for putting minorities and women back in their rightful place, like in the good old days, when dumb white guys ruled the world. No "real man" would vote for an uppity educated, cerebral woman over a fire-breathing maniac like Trump, right?

[Bham1982]

The black population of NYC grew from 2.103 million in 1990 to 2.130 million in 2000, as the crime plummeted dramatically.

These numbers do not distinguish between African Americans and West Indians, but I find it hard to believe that the outmigration of African Americans from NYC in the 1990s [[and replacement by non-African American blacks) was dramatic enough to cause a 75% rededication of homicide in only 8 years.

I'm not saying it's the only issue, or even the primary issue, but I think it's generally agreed that the huge ethnic changes in NYC contributed to the homicide drops.

NYC has had massive lower income African American outmigration, much moreso than even Chicago, and beginning decades earlier, but it's masked because NYC is unique in the U.S. [[well maybe Miami too) in that its black population is heavily foreign-born or at least of foreign descent.

And the 1990's were a decade of huge change, as black neighborhoods shifted from African American to West Indian. Nowadays, all the NYC black neighborhoods have a visible immigrant presence. Black neighborhoods are still very common, but look/feel very different from black neighborhoods in Detroit or Chicago.

[Wesley Mouch]

Please tell me you are kidding or being sarcastic here...

You think that Trump is a breath of fresh air on race relations, and Obama and the "bigots on the left" inflamed racial animosity?

I really want to hear your explanation of how Obama inflamed racial animosity, who you think the bigots on the left are, and what makes you think that Trump is a "breath of fresh air" on race issues.

I'm dead serious on this, because I can't fathom what you could possibly be talking about...

I am not kidding.

Eight years ago, race relations were at the best in my long lifetime. President Obama had the opportunity to continue the arch of progress towards a world where racism doesn't exist. Instead, he's chosen to amplify racial grievances. He's focused on what separates us and what divides us. His support of BLM ignored the simultaneous need to support black and white cops in helping our cities.

That of course is just my opinion. I don't ask that you agree, but only ask for respect for what I believe. I'd hoped for better, and got more racial divisions. We should be better today than we were 8 years ago on race.

As to Trump, we'll see how it goes. I continue to have huge doubts and concerns about the man. But what I see is conservative Democrats fighting urban reforms. I see decades of effort and control -- and few results. When you nominate Ben Carson from Detroit for HUD, or DeVos from Michigan to Education, you can't say he's not shaking things up. Breath of fresh air.

Thanks for asking.

[Bham1982]

I am not kidding.

Eight years ago, race relations were at the best in my long lifetime.

No, race relations were horrible eight years ago, much worse than today.

What you mean to say is that eight years ago we had far more racial animosity and institutional inequality, which in your view is the natural order of things, and you hope Trump restores this sad state of affairs.

President Obama had the opportunity to continue the arch of progress towards a world where racism doesn't exist. Instead, he's chosen to amplify racial grievances.

And here you mean to say "Obama should have put his head in the sand like right wing conservatives and pretended that there was no more inequality and that minorities and women and gays should shut up already; instead he decided to advocate for equality for all."

He's focused on what separates us and what divides us. His support of BLM ignored the simultaneous need to support black and white cops in helping our cities.

The existence of BLM only "divides us" if you're a racist. Support for BLM has nothing to do with lack of support for police [[in case you hadn't noticed, BLM also has support among the police).

And anyone who has a fundamental problem with a group trying to save black lives is a bigot. Cops should not be allowed to kill people with impunity.

[Johnnny5]

No, race relations were horrible eight years ago, much worse than today.

You seriously believe this?


I think one of your posts from a few weeks ago applies here.

People invent a reality around their established worldview.

[Bham1982]

You seriously believe this?

Yes, obviously. Race relations were far worse eight years ago, unless you're an angry white guy sitting on his ass in a trailer park.

The people who claim Obama "divided" Americans are the same people who think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim terrorist. He's "divisive" because he sought equal rights for all, which angers bigots [[the same people who have likely destroyed the country by electing an orange tinpot dictator).

[Zozo]

Yes, obviously. Race relations were far worse eight years ago, unless you're an angry white guy sitting on his ass in a trailer park.

The people who claim Obama "divided" Americans are the same people who think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim terrorist. He's "divisive" because he sought equal rights for all, which angers bigots [[the same people who have likely destroyed the country by electing an orange tinpot dictator).

Yeah, he sure did a great job bringing the country together when he organized that famous Harvard beer summit. Or perhaps it was his healing statements after the grand jury declined to bring charges against Darren Wilson, or his thoughtful words prior to George Zimmerman being found not guilty in a jury trial. Can't forget him speaking out against the Black Lives Matter terrorists in Ferguson, or anywhere else for that matter, or his bold words against the Black Panthers who were openly intimidating white voters in Philly during the 2008 election. Thanks, Obama, you little peaceful lamb, kumbaya!

[Calltoaction]

A totally agree with you that violent crime rates have dramatically fallen in America even as out of wedlock birth rates have increased [[At least in most areas, unfortunately Detroit isn't really one of them).

WTF are you talking about? Crime has declined in the city.

[Johnnny5]

WTF are you talking about? Crime has declined in the city.

Look at the rates, not the total numbers. In the last two decades the actual number of violent crimes and homicides in Detroit has only been reduced as the population dropped. Yes, we're down from the spike in early 90's, but the overall murder rate has barely budged in the last 20 years. While the murder rate nationwide has been cut in half from it's peak, Detroit's murder rate has only seen about a 25% reduction [[That's from the insane rates in the early 90's). And we've seen no reduction whatsoever since 1996.

[erikd]

I doubt it too -- but I also doubt that crime rates are linear. Part of the great 'broken windows' theory argues that one crime encourages others. So it may be that concentration of a demographic with significant crime rate might see a disproportionate increase in crime.

That is a very plausible theory that would explain a dramatic decrease in crime over a short period of when the demographic shifts alone do not account for it.

There could be [[and most likely is) a compounding effect and feedback loop that has a significant impact on crime levels.

[erikd]

I'm not saying it's the only issue, or even the primary issue, but I think it's generally agreed that the huge ethnic changes in NYC contributed to the homicide drops.

NYC has had massive lower income African American outmigration, much moreso than even Chicago, and beginning decades earlier, but it's masked because NYC is unique in the U.S. [[well maybe Miami too) in that its black population is heavily foreign-born or at least of foreign descent.

And the 1990's were a decade of huge change, as black neighborhoods shifted from African American to West Indian. Nowadays, all the NYC black neighborhoods have a visible immigrant presence. Black neighborhoods are still very common, but look/feel very different from black neighborhoods in Detroit or Chicago.

I think we may be arguing different points here...

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the difference in crime rates between NYC and Detroit/Chicago are due to ethnic make up.

That can explain the difference between crime rates in NYC and Detroit/Chicago, but it doesn't explain the dramatic plummeting of crime rates in NYC that sunnily happened after 1991.

If the black ethnic makeup of NYC had been changing for many years preceding 1991, then why did crime in NYC continue to increase until 1991? If this demographic shift was happening, shouldn't we have been seeing a reduction in crime before 1991 as well?

I'm not arguing that demographics shifts aren't a factor, but I am arguing that the demographic shifts can't be the primary factor in the sudden plummeting of crime rates in NYC after 1991. The demographics of NYC simply did not change that suddenly and that much over a few years after 1991. There has to be another factor that was the primary cause for the sudden drop off in crime.

[erikd]

I am not kidding.

Eight years ago, race relations were at the best in my long lifetime. President Obama had the opportunity to continue the arch of progress towards a world where racism doesn't exist. Instead, he's chosen to amplify racial grievances. He's focused on what separates us and what divides us. His support of BLM ignored the simultaneous need to support black and white cops in helping our cities.

That of course is just my opinion. I don't ask that you agree, but only ask for respect for what I believe. I'd hoped for better, and got more racial divisions. We should be better today than we were 8 years ago on race.

As to Trump, we'll see how it goes. I continue to have huge doubts and concerns about the man. But what I see is conservative Democrats fighting urban reforms. I see decades of effort and control -- and few results. When you nominate Ben Carson from Detroit for HUD, or DeVos from Michigan to Education, you can't say he's not shaking things up. Breath of fresh air.

Thanks for asking.

I have heard many people express similar sentiments about Obama and BLM, and I'm very interested to know more about the specifics of it.

It seems to me that we can support police officers, and also oppose certain tactics and abuses of power by bad cops. Just like we can support the military, while also opposing the use of torture.

What is the issue with supporting a call for the ending of unjust law enforcement tactics, and calling for police officers who abuse their power to be held accountable?

Do you think that the accusations of police discrimination and abuse are mostly false or imagined, and should not be supported because they are baseless? Or do you think that there are a few legitimate issues, but they are being blown way out of proportion? Or do you think that it is a legitimate issue, but it should be handled in a different manner?

[mwilbert]

I think we may be arguing different points here...

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the difference in crime rates between NYC and Detroit/Chicago are due to ethnic make up.

That can explain the difference between crime rates in NYC and Detroit/Chicago, but it doesn't explain the dramatic plummeting of crime rates in NYC that sunnily happened after 1991.

If the black ethnic makeup of NYC had been changing for many years preceding 1991, then why did crime in NYC continue to increase until 1991? If this demographic shift was happening, shouldn't we have been seeing a reduction in crime before 1991 as well?

I'm not arguing that demographics shifts aren't a factor, but I am arguing that the demographic shifts can't be the primary factor in the sudden plummeting of crime rates in NYC after 1991. The demographics of NYC simply did not change that suddenly and that much over a few years after 1991. There has to be another factor that was the primary cause for the sudden drop off in crime.

Not everyone agrees with this, but I believe that the main factor was lead poisoning.


For scholarly support of the underlying hypothesis, see
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jfe...lead_crime.pdf


For a more popular treatment, see http://www.motherjones.com/environme...hildren-health


For a view on how lead is working its way through the various age cohorts of the population, see http://www.humanimpact.org/from-the-...s-running-dry/


You can see the same trends internationally, with peak crime moving back and forth because of the varying times different countries removed lead from gasoline, but I can't find any graphs that aren't behind paywalls.