Why did they graph when the homicides were reported to them instead of when they occurred? The freak 2017 clearance spike allowed them to minimize the numbers visually. I didn't used to be so cynical.
Yesterday, I read the FBI had to revise the 2023 violent crime total from a small decrease into a small increase from 2022.
> "Why did they graph when the homicides were reported to them instead of when they occurred?"
Presumably it is to reduce the work of restating already reported numbers even though it would be more accurate and honest if they did more restatements.
> "The freak 2017 clearance spike"
Yeah, wtf is that? Google and "AI" [sic] are, characteristically, no help in explaining this. But yes, it sure helps keep the actually important part of the graph camouflaged. Is the FBI hiring the dumbest or most Machiavellian MIT graduates?
How can you tell they which date they used? Is it the date the crime was reported to the FBI or the date the original homicide detectives reported it? I can see why they would use the latter since most murders would be reported within a few days and for the rest you wouldn't have an accurate date for occurrence
Lost in all this discussion about whether the homicide rate is up or down relative to some previous year is the far more important question - is the normal or average YOY homicide rate a reasonable figure for a civilized society?
Obviously the answer is "absolutely not" and I think a strong majority of the country feels this way. The issue is clouded by the real or deliberate ignorance of half the country about how much of it is driven by black Americans. One often sees it framed as a gun problem, but those who put that forth don't want to discuss who is most enthusiastic about settling hurt feelings with lethal measures.
Absent clear-sighted and proactive measures that would mean more arrests and imprisonment, the only way out of this is that enough of those most inclined to violence are themselves killed off. A lot of the actions of Democratic politicians in response to BLM and homelessness have halted or reversed urban revitalization and it's going to take decades to recover, and some cities won't at all.
Europe and early America seem to have winnowed many of the murder genes from their respective populations with the hue and cry followed by a lynching. That option seems to be denied at this time.
The list of capital crimes in both countries was substantially longer and more easily applied in the past. Today both countries actively subsidize the ability of our lowest potential members to procreate and keep them alive long enough to also spawn.
There is a good case to drastically reduce social welfare benefits simply because they don't really move the needle when it comes to recipients productivity or behavior. But a secondary one is anything that makes it more difficult to raise/afford children for them is a good thing for society as well.
I think that is a great graph. I found it easy to read and comprehend and the second axis allowed the overlay of the population coverage. Most importantly, in contrast to a lot of other graphs, it doesn't punish me for having red-green color blindness. I love that they have very contrasty colors and I don't care that it wouldn't be a good choice for a kitchen. So often I see a graph with 10 lines of (to me) similar colors that are all the same level of darkness. medium dull green vs medium grey? You can't tell those apart? See, Erik, this is why we need eugenics!
Total homicide numbers go up an down each year, but what about the homicide numbers for young black males? Do they drive the volatility? Based on my back-of-the-envelope figuring, young black males under 34 account for about 60 percent of all black homicides and black homicides account for about 60 percent of all US murders per year. That's at least 5,000 youngish dead black males per year -- for the last 40 years, basically. Since 1994, that adds up to 150,000 homicide victims, mostly in cities. I call it 'The American Slaughter.' It's a crime that important black leaders -- and white ones -- have not mounted a national crusade to reduce the killing. https://clips.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/140061276/share-center?alreadyPublished=true
What is the explanation for the steady reductions from 97% to 92% from 2014 through 2023 of population covered by the FBI reports, illegal immigration? That seems significant and likely to affect the results if the less reported population is more violent.
My back-of-the-envelope calculation is that the rate of decline shown in the CDC homicide numbers from 2021 through 2023, about 6.4% per year, would have to continue for an additional six years, through 2029, before the number of homicides fell below 16,000, as was the case in 2014. There were 50,073 more homicides committed from 2015 through 2023 than would have been the case if the number had held steady at the 15,872 recorded in 2014.
Steve, thanks for highlighting this each year. Have you done a per capita comparison? I.e., take the census data and FBI/CDC homicide data from 2010, and compare it to census and FBI/CDC data from 2020. Since the Ferguson Effect started in 2014ish, you should see an increase in per capita homicide data, correct? All else being equal, if the per capita homicide rate of the 2010 US population is X, even when the population increases over the decade, the 2020 US population per capita homicide rate should be near that X number from 2010, correct? If it is larger by some order of magnitude, then you could hypothesize the Ferguson and Floyd Effects, etc. have had a significant effect on homicides.
I see from the .gov census website that the 2010 population was 308,745,538, while the population in 2020 was 331,449,281, an increase of 22,703,743 (that we know of), about +7.4%..
Your table starts at 2014; I found the total homicide deaths from 2010 CDC data here (page 40):
The data table lists 16,259 homicide deaths; 16,259 / 308,745,538 = .000053 for a per capita amount.
Using the 2020 CDC count of 24,576 in the numerator and 2020 population of 331,449,281 in the denominator produces a homicides per capita of .000074.
As I stated above, all else being equal (i.e. no Ferguson Effect or Floyd Mass Psychosis, etc.), the rate of homicide per capita should remain about the same; .000053 X 331,449,281 ~ 17,455 homicides. That would be consistent with the 7.4% population increase. However, the actual per capita rate (.000074) is ~41% higher than the predicted rate. So, yeah, some other cause(s) have contributed to the spike in per capita homicide rate. If I have the time, I'd like to go back and get the data for the last 100 years (using each decennial census data and available national homicide data) to see what the greater trend is. But alas, my day job intrudes.
> they were supposed to make sense of the numbers rather than work on grooving their *wings*
Swings?
No, wings. Wings is correct.
LOL.
Why did they graph when the homicides were reported to them instead of when they occurred? The freak 2017 clearance spike allowed them to minimize the numbers visually. I didn't used to be so cynical.
Yesterday, I read the FBI had to revise the 2023 violent crime total from a small decrease into a small increase from 2022.
> "Why did they graph when the homicides were reported to them instead of when they occurred?"
Presumably it is to reduce the work of restating already reported numbers even though it would be more accurate and honest if they did more restatements.
> "The freak 2017 clearance spike"
Yeah, wtf is that? Google and "AI" [sic] are, characteristically, no help in explaining this. But yes, it sure helps keep the actually important part of the graph camouflaged. Is the FBI hiring the dumbest or most Machiavellian MIT graduates?
Maybe that was the year they finally cracked the 9-11 case.
Detective from old Sailer Comments section: Solved the case sir. The Jews were behind it. It's all here in my report.
Captain: Excellent job, Jenkins. I'm so happy about this I am going to personally type this into the new FBI mandated database. Enjoy retirement.
Haha, yeah it could be they decided to 'close' 9/11 that year ... and 11000 other murders.
How can you tell they which date they used? Is it the date the crime was reported to the FBI or the date the original homicide detectives reported it? I can see why they would use the latter since most murders would be reported within a few days and for the rest you wouldn't have an accurate date for occurrence
Nice work, Steve. Gonna hang onto your chart and graph and use the FBI's graph for fishwrap.
Minor observation:
There is an uptick in homicides (seasonal?) each year with an associated and expected uptick in clearances.
At the end of 2021 there is a small (seasonal?) uptick in homicides but no corresponding uptick in clearances (maybe comes a little later?).
Still in 2022 and 2023 clearances seem lower than expected.
However at the end of 2023 clearances go up with very small increase in homicides. Is this an "election year get the potholes filled" phenomena?
Lost in all this discussion about whether the homicide rate is up or down relative to some previous year is the far more important question - is the normal or average YOY homicide rate a reasonable figure for a civilized society?
Obviously the answer is "absolutely not" and I think a strong majority of the country feels this way. The issue is clouded by the real or deliberate ignorance of half the country about how much of it is driven by black Americans. One often sees it framed as a gun problem, but those who put that forth don't want to discuss who is most enthusiastic about settling hurt feelings with lethal measures.
Absent clear-sighted and proactive measures that would mean more arrests and imprisonment, the only way out of this is that enough of those most inclined to violence are themselves killed off. A lot of the actions of Democratic politicians in response to BLM and homelessness have halted or reversed urban revitalization and it's going to take decades to recover, and some cities won't at all.
Europe and early America seem to have winnowed many of the murder genes from their respective populations with the hue and cry followed by a lynching. That option seems to be denied at this time.
The list of capital crimes in both countries was substantially longer and more easily applied in the past. Today both countries actively subsidize the ability of our lowest potential members to procreate and keep them alive long enough to also spawn.
There is a good case to drastically reduce social welfare benefits simply because they don't really move the needle when it comes to recipients productivity or behavior. But a secondary one is anything that makes it more difficult to raise/afford children for them is a good thing for society as well.
I think that is a great graph. I found it easy to read and comprehend and the second axis allowed the overlay of the population coverage. Most importantly, in contrast to a lot of other graphs, it doesn't punish me for having red-green color blindness. I love that they have very contrasty colors and I don't care that it wouldn't be a good choice for a kitchen. So often I see a graph with 10 lines of (to me) similar colors that are all the same level of darkness. medium dull green vs medium grey? You can't tell those apart? See, Erik, this is why we need eugenics!
This graph is treat
Total homicide numbers go up an down each year, but what about the homicide numbers for young black males? Do they drive the volatility? Based on my back-of-the-envelope figuring, young black males under 34 account for about 60 percent of all black homicides and black homicides account for about 60 percent of all US murders per year. That's at least 5,000 youngish dead black males per year -- for the last 40 years, basically. Since 1994, that adds up to 150,000 homicide victims, mostly in cities. I call it 'The American Slaughter.' It's a crime that important black leaders -- and white ones -- have not mounted a national crusade to reduce the killing. https://clips.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/140061276/share-center?alreadyPublished=true
Right, when young black men go on a murder binge, as in the years after George Floyd's death, the whole country goes on a murder binge.
This clear and informative write up is a genuine public service.
What is the explanation for the steady reductions from 97% to 92% from 2014 through 2023 of population covered by the FBI reports, illegal immigration? That seems significant and likely to affect the results if the less reported population is more violent.
My back-of-the-envelope calculation is that the rate of decline shown in the CDC homicide numbers from 2021 through 2023, about 6.4% per year, would have to continue for an additional six years, through 2029, before the number of homicides fell below 16,000, as was the case in 2014. There were 50,073 more homicides committed from 2015 through 2023 than would have been the case if the number had held steady at the 15,872 recorded in 2014.
Steve, thanks for highlighting this each year. Have you done a per capita comparison? I.e., take the census data and FBI/CDC homicide data from 2010, and compare it to census and FBI/CDC data from 2020. Since the Ferguson Effect started in 2014ish, you should see an increase in per capita homicide data, correct? All else being equal, if the per capita homicide rate of the 2010 US population is X, even when the population increases over the decade, the 2020 US population per capita homicide rate should be near that X number from 2010, correct? If it is larger by some order of magnitude, then you could hypothesize the Ferguson and Floyd Effects, etc. have had a significant effect on homicides.
I see from the .gov census website that the 2010 population was 308,745,538, while the population in 2020 was 331,449,281, an increase of 22,703,743 (that we know of), about +7.4%..
Your table starts at 2014; I found the total homicide deaths from 2010 CDC data here (page 40):
https://stacks.cdc.gov/pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/21508/cdc_21508_DS1.pdf#tab01
The data table lists 16,259 homicide deaths; 16,259 / 308,745,538 = .000053 for a per capita amount.
Using the 2020 CDC count of 24,576 in the numerator and 2020 population of 331,449,281 in the denominator produces a homicides per capita of .000074.
As I stated above, all else being equal (i.e. no Ferguson Effect or Floyd Mass Psychosis, etc.), the rate of homicide per capita should remain about the same; .000053 X 331,449,281 ~ 17,455 homicides. That would be consistent with the 7.4% population increase. However, the actual per capita rate (.000074) is ~41% higher than the predicted rate. So, yeah, some other cause(s) have contributed to the spike in per capita homicide rate. If I have the time, I'd like to go back and get the data for the last 100 years (using each decennial census data and available national homicide data) to see what the greater trend is. But alas, my day job intrudes.