You can read in the Los Angeles Times that crime rates are down, and there were "only" 208 murders so far this year. Groovy.What they never tell you, however, is how very many crimes are committed in the City of Los Angeles. Nor do they ever tell you how much lower the crime rates in surrounding cities are.
So I will. When you look at those numbers, you realize that Villaraigosa's and Beck's self-congratulatory press releases about crime rates dropping are like a kid waving around his report card merely because he brought his "F-" grade up to a solid "F."
Let's start with the actual number of crimes committed in the City of Los Angeles so far this year:
The number of women raped so far this year: 541. You think they're pleased that the crime rate is supposedly down? By the way, do we still have a massive backlog of unprocessed rape kits? If City Hall had eliminated that backlog, you can bet we would have heard about it.
The number of people robbed in the first nine months of this year: 7,930. That's ROBBED, as in, "Give me your money or I'll shoot you, M.F." That's nearly as many robbery victims as we have police officers.
Aggravated assaults: 6,803. How much do you enjoy getting beaten up?
Then there's property crimes, including burglary, grand theft auto an so on: 62,481 victims so far this year.
Number of reports of shots fired: 2,146.
Here's one of my favorites. The number of shooting victims -- and the year isn't over -- is 1001.
Villaraigosa and Beck point out there were 1200 murders in 1992, and "only" 208 so far this year. But was it because we finally have enough police? Or was it merely because our emergency rooms get so much practice with shooting victims, and because medical technology has advanced so much, that more of them simply survive? As Rob Marinko once asked, how many shooting victims lives were saved just by closing "Killer King" hospital?
Now, if through some fluke you still think, "Yeah, but crime is down, and that's good," consider how much higher the crime rate in the City of Los Angeles is than in surrounding cities. According to the latest FBI crime statistics, here's the skinny:
Violent crimes per 100,000 residents in Los Angeles: 681. Property crimes per 100,000 residents in Los Angeles: 2,724.
In Glendale, by contrast, the corresponding figures are just 153 and 1,902. In Burbank, the figures are 245 and 2,579. In Irvine, the numbers are 70 and 1,384.
So instead of allowing Villaraigosa and Beck to pat themselves on the back for supposedly reducing the number of murders -- a statistic one could as easily attribute to advances in medicine -- the local press should instead press these two to explain why the crime rate is so much higher in Los Angeles than in surrounding cities.
We should, in short, shoot for Irvine's numbers, rather than uncorking the champagne merely because there have "only" been 15,482 victims of violent crimes and 62,481 victims of property crimes in our city so far this year. Bringing an "F-" up to an "F" really isn't that spectacular.
And you didn't even get into the actual manipulation of the police investigations just to get the numbers where they are! It's amazing how easily a dead body can be written up as victim of an accident. Hey, less paperwork for everybody and the neighborhood has a lower crime rate! Heck,when you are buddies with a Councilman you get a "get out of jail free card." Jusk ask Councilman Huizar!!!!
ReplyDeleteKeep after them. I've reposted it here: http://forensicphotoshop.blogspot.com/2010/09/fun-with-stats.html
ReplyDeletebest,
Jim
Thanks, Jim. And thanks for voting for me! I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't trust any of the numbers given by the LAPD. They have a vested political interest in showing that the crime numbers are going down. Sort of like a corporate accountant's tricks.
ReplyDeleteAggravated assault is MUCH MORE than "getting beaten up". The term is grossly misleading. I personally know of one instance where attempted murder with a gun, where the gun was actually used, was listed as "aggravated assault" on the LAPD website (http://lapdcrimemaps.org/ where aggravated assault is defined as "An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm.").
Let's consider "Aggravated assaults" attempted murders.
Villar's and Beck's assertions that Los Angeles is now as "safe" as it was in the 1950's are only good for a laugh. Do people feel safer in Los Angeles? Particularly after dark? No way.
Just to play devil's advocate, maybe the other cities that you mentioned have lower numbers because of their smaller populations?
ReplyDeleteThe numbers I cite are crimes per 100,000 residents. Hence, those cities have not just fewer crimes, but lower crime rates.
ReplyDeleteThen again, maybe you knew that, and let's assume you did. The next question is then: Why should a big city accept higher crime rates than a small one?
All these cities are mushed together into one giant megalopolis. Our portion of the megalopolis is mismanaged.
Oh, sure, if you're gonna use FACTS! :)
ReplyDelete