Capital Killings

Here's a chart from the Washington Post showing that despite a substantial decline in the DC murder rate, and despite the fact that Baltimore and Detroit have overtaken us as murder hubs, the DC homicide rate is still really really high.

The facts get even more stark when you put them in context. Detroit is an economically depressed city where 32.5 percent of individuals are below the poverty line. DC's poverty rate is slightly lower than what you see in much-safer cities like Houston, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

And of course one has to assume that the high crime rate is an impediment to economic opportunity. Depressed commercial corridors like George Avenue and H Street NE would probably have more vitality -- fewer boarded-up storefronts, more job opportunities -- if more people felt safer walking around the city at night. I'm not sure I have a theory as to why DC's crime control efforts are so ineffective compared to some other cities though the fact that the police department has to dedicate substantial resources to special capital-related stuff rather than to patrolling the streets doesn't help.

Comments

And Steve Sailor spews some vulgar bullshit in five, four, three...

Posted by calipygian | July 7, 2008 8:43 AM

They're juking the stats.

Posted by Ben | July 7, 2008 8:56 AM

A wild idea for governing Washington: give democracy a try.

Posted by James Wimberley | July 7, 2008 8:58 AM

Damn, Oakland is slacking.

Posted by dizzyg | July 7, 2008 9:01 AM

decline? perhaps we have different definitions for the term "decline" - using the table you provided DCs murder rate increased from 23.5 to 35.4. A decline only serves if you anchor in 1990 or 1995.

How does city size impact these statistics (and yes I know these are per capita numbers). Baltimore, for example, is a relatively small city -- how statistically significant are the variations in these statistics? Also, if you include the wider metro regions?

Posted by mike c | July 7, 2008 9:05 AM

Not only that, but Baltimore is on pace to have on 65% of the homicides it had last year.

Unless there's a real life Marlo Stanfield hiding bodies, DC is going to be in a battle with Detroit for highest rate in the country.

Posted by GtheK | July 7, 2008 9:06 AM

A quick estimate suggests that nearly all these cities at all these years have a far higher death-rate than that of the Northern Ireland conflict (about 3,500 dead 1968-98 with a population of 1.2 - 1.5 million).

Now clearly Northern Ireland was a pretty low-intensity conflict but it was still deemed to be pretty much in a low-level civil war for thirty years, which isn't what I think of when I hear "Detroit".

Posted by James | July 7, 2008 9:30 AM

I'd assume Northern Ireland also had some regular murders to go along with its conflict-related murders.

Posted by phil | July 7, 2008 9:38 AM

It strains coincidence to suggest that the District's abject failure at all sorts of city services is unconnected to the fact that it's the only metropolitan area in the country where local government is emasulated by Congressional meddling. Most obviously, of course, in the absence of a commuter tax, which allows carpet-baggers like me to spend the majority of my waking hours here, using city services and demanding city protection, without paying a nickel for the privilege.

Posted by Cliffy | July 7, 2008 9:41 AM

Damn. Look at how awesome the Guiliani-Bloomberg era has been.

Posted by Al | July 7, 2008 9:51 AM

All these comparisons are highly suspect becasue of the dilution factor. Some of these cities (such as Houston) make up quite a large portion of the metropolitan areas of which they are a part. Others (e.g. DC) are made up of the urban core plus quite a small fraction of the surrounding suburbanized areas.

I suspect there are real differences that are worth exploring, but more sophisticated data are needed first.

Posted by roac | July 7, 2008 10:05 AM

DC is puzzling but so is Baltimore. The place has some of the direst ghettos I've ever seen, but parts of Houston and Philly are pretty scary too and they don't have "Bodymore, Murderland's" homicide rate.

And unlike Detroit, it's right in the middle of the bustling I-95 megaloplis in addition to becoming a defacto part of the DC burbs. What's up? I love the DC area, but the crime rate has remained out of control for more than 30 years while other problem cities have got it under control.

Remember NYC in the 80s. It wasn't the hip fun place to live then. It was still hip but it was scary urban jungle. Giuliani was a major jerk, but the drop in violent crime like that ain't nothing to sneeze at.

Posted by am | July 7, 2008 10:08 AM

Damn. Look at how awesome the Guiliani-Bloomberg era has been.

One the special features for one of the seasons of The Wire, David Simon is talking to a group of film (I think) students about the show, and in discussing "why Baltimore," one of his points is that more murders were committed in the three extant Law and Order franchises in the most recent season than were actually committed in Manhattan.

Posted by Medrawt | July 7, 2008 10:08 AM

What's interesting is that between 1990 and 2000 the murder rate went down in all twelve cities. The conservative explanation for this was not the good economy but the high incarceration rate. Between 2000 and 2005, however, the murder rate went up in 6/12 of the cities (and I would hazard a guess that it's close to 12/12, now). Since the incarceration rate is even higher now, what is the conservative explanation for the rebound in violent crime?

Posted by Jose Padilla | July 7, 2008 10:30 AM

Baltimore I sort of understand. It suffered worse than many of the other Rust Belt cities during the 1965-1985 decline. While some of those places have managed to reinvent themselves to a certain degree (Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc.), many have not. I liken it to Buffalo--a place that just hasn't really found a good replacement industry for the heavy industrial activity it lost.

With DC, I think it's a case of a permanent underclass that, thanks to the godawful schools and other services, is cut off from the economic prosperity of the area. The region's economy is intellectual-based--government, high-tech, etc. Yes, there is a large retail sector, but there's little in terms of upward mobility there.

Posted by Claudius | July 7, 2008 10:32 AM

I'm not sure I have a theory as to why DC's crime control efforts are so ineffective compared to some other cities...

There's the outlier of New York City, but other than that, most of the places on this chart have managed to cut the incidence of murder by roughly half since 1990. I'm not so sure DC's efforts are really so "ineffective." Rather, it looks like they're pretty average, but that they're starting from a really high level.

Posted by Jasper | July 7, 2008 10:36 AM

"I'd assume Northern Ireland also had some regular murders to go along with its conflict-related murders."

Fair point but I don't think such regular murders would be enough to undermine the comparison.

"how awesome the Guiliani-Bloomberg era has been"

Were Guiliani-type law & order policies pursued in all these cities (since they all seem to have experienced significant improvement in the "Guiliani-Bloomberg era")? Maybe Rudy just got all the attention cos it was NYC?

Posted by James | July 7, 2008 11:15 AM

Baltimore, for example, is a relatively small city

Baltimore is the 19th ranked city in the country - more people than DC or Boston. Also, St Louis, Newark, and New Orleans, preenially higher murder rates than DC, are missing from the list.

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | July 7, 2008 11:28 AM

It is distressing that the myth that Giuliani is responsible for NYC's reduction in crime is alive and well. He's not. I would hope for better from Matt's audience.

Posted by DH in DC | July 7, 2008 11:31 AM

"Maybe Rudy just got all the attention cos it was NYC?"

Well, no. Surely that helps, and there is *zero* proof from these numbers that Rudy deserves the credit, but pointing out that all the cities improved is ignoring just how much of an outlier New York is. In 1990 New York had a higher murder rate than 5 of the 10 other cities on the list, and was more than half as bad as Detroit, the second worst city shown. Now it's last on the list, about half as bad as the second safest city on the list.

Whatever happened in the city, and whoever - if anyone - deserves the credit, this is not simply New York getting attention for being New York.

Posted by NC Saint | July 7, 2008 11:33 AM

Is there any major difference between the drug trade in DC and Baltimore? I know a lot more about Baltimore's drug problems than DC's. Could those differences account for the differences in numbers here?

Posted by Reality Man | July 7, 2008 12:31 PM

All other considerations aside, I think those numbers are perhaps the most potent argument against the DC handgun ban.

Posted by Persia | July 7, 2008 12:34 PM

Why did DC's murder rate spike so heavily between 1985 and 1990?

Posted by Andrew | July 7, 2008 12:54 PM

Frankly I don't know if Rudy really deserves credit or not. The factors that led to the 90s ecnomic boom predate Bill Clinton and include many things that he had nothing to do with, but he does get the credit for the good times so Rudy deserves a little, even though he is an authoritarian creep.

Crime did go down anywhere in the 90s, but the recovery NYC made was remarkable. If Detroit went from No. 2 to No. 12 in 10 years I think we would be talking about it too.

Posted by am | July 7, 2008 1:01 PM

Andrew: While few trends have a single cause, the major issue from 1985-1990 was the crack epidemic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_Epidemic

Posted by Philly | July 7, 2008 1:05 PM

Andrew: While few trends have a single cause, the major issue from 1985-1990 was the crack epidemic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_Epidemic

Posted by Philly | July 7, 2008 1:09 PM

I'm not sure I have a theory as to why DC's crime control efforts are so ineffective compared to some other cities ...

Interesting that a liberal blogger can't think of a theory for why the homicide rate would be lower in Houston than in DC.

Texas vigorously uses the death penalty, and DC doesn't have the death penaty. Are you unwilling to consider the possibility that the death penalty is a deterrent?

There's good evidence that it is:

http://jaltcoh.blogspot.com/2008/05/does-death-penalty-really-save-lives_21.html

Posted by jaltcoh.blogspot.com | July 7, 2008 1:30 PM

I'm with jaltcoh. The fact that Texas is pretty much the only state in the country to use the death penalty enough to get a deterrent effect clearly explains why Texas cities are in the middle of the pack as far as murder rate goes.

Posted by Lon | July 7, 2008 1:59 PM

maybe jaltcoh's browser can't load the bottom 4 cities?

Posted by cletus | July 7, 2008 3:03 PM

maybe jaltcoh's browser can't load the bottom 4 cities?

No, you'd need to have an actual controlled study to fully explain city-to-city variations. Obviously you can't assume that the death penalty alone produced the difference between Houston's homicide rate and DC's -- there could be many other factors. For instance, NYC has devoted tons of resources to crime control; it's ludicrous to ignore that and just assume that their recent abolition of the death penalty is solely responsible for their relatively low homicide rate. I just found it interesting that Yglesias said he was having trouble thinking of any factors to explain the difference. If you go to the linked blog post, I talk about how numerous studies have attempted to control for lots of different variables and found that the death penalty is a deterrent.

Posted by jaltcoh.blogspot.com | July 7, 2008 3:25 PM

2006 homicide rates for Canada:

Montreal 1.4
Toronto 1.8
Vancouver 2.5

Canada 1.85

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070718/d070718b.htm

So DC's rate is twenty-five times Montreal's.

I suppose jaltcoh could argue that if Canada had the death penalty its rates would be even lower. And if we had more handguns to defend ourselves with.

Posted by PD | July 7, 2008 3:58 PM

The stability of Baltimore's crime rate while D.C.'s has been falling suggests that the gentrification of D.C. by people like Matt (the white population has gone up from 28% to 33% in this decade, and the remaining black population is increasingly comprised of generally better behaved African immigrants rather than American born blacks) suggests that poor people priced out of D.C. might be moving to Baltimore.

In general, what we're seeing across the country is the Paris-ification of top tier American cities, such as NYC, where rising costs force out the crime-prone classes, who take refuge either in Section 8 housing in moldering suburbs or in loser cities like Baltimore and Newark. (See Hanna Rosin recent Atlantic article on Section 8 rent subsidies for details).

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 7, 2008 5:33 PM

"how numerous studies have attempted to control for lots of different variables and found that the death penalty is a deterrent."

I believe the operative phrase there is likely to be "ATTEMPTED to control for lots of different variables."

In other words, they fudged the data because they were believers in the death penalty.

I reiterate what I said before - if you get to the point where you want to kill somebody, seriously, the death penalty is not a factor in your calculations.

Now, the odds of getting CAUGHT ARE a factor in your calculations. But not the penalty after you get caught. You knew what that was before you decided to kill somebody.

The only person a death penalty deters from committing more crimes is the guy executed. You can argue that has some value over a life imprisonment (it's cheaper and he can't escape are basically the only arguments), but that's it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 7, 2008 8:40 PM

By the way, Washington D.C.'s murder rate history is more evidence against the popular theory of economist Steven "Freakonomics" Levitt that legalizing abortion lowered crime a generation later. Abortion was de facto legal in D.C. by 1970, but the overall murder rate in D.C. more than tripled from 1985 to 1990 as teens born in the early 1970s, when D.C. was the abortion capital of America, began slaughtering each other in large numbers in the crack wars.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 7, 2008 9:38 PM

I would tend to think that abortion actually leads to more crime through its effect on the moral tenor of society. Abortion (like capitalism) helps to solidify into the minds of the youth of America the idea that "You can have what you want", and that moral restraint is an outmoded thing of the past. This is of course the same logic of the person who steals, murders, or sells drugs to "get what he wants."

Posted by Hector | July 8, 2008 9:00 AM