I find myself asking a funny-sounding question here, which is simply "does it matter if Americans think crime is getting worse when it's not?"
As long as crime is still a serious problem what does it matter that the average voter also understands the trend direction?
As an analogy, I have no idea if the population of endangered Grey Wolves is going up or down, and knowing the right answer wouldn't really change my support for laws or policies that protect them.
I think it matters a lot. For example, Baltimore is finding a lot of success with a wholistic approach partnership between violence prevention groups, police, prosecutors, and government officials. If you think that crime is getting worse, you might agree with a politician who says that grants to violence prevention programs are a “woke waste of resources”. And the administration cut many of these grants earlier this year.
If you know that crime is decreasing the public is more likely to keep supporting and funding programs that are making a difference. If they always think it is increasing then they are likely to demand changes which makes long-term results hard to come by.
The other way it matters is that many of America’s African-American elected officials are big city mayors (or represent urban districts in Congress). If Americans always think crime is rising it places an artificial barrier on these mayors from becoming Governors and Senators.
It's very hard to say what specifically is causing crime to drop in Baltimore or any other city. Any time you have an unusual crime drop, you'll have virtually every elected official, agency and program being very quick to take credit. But it takes an enormous amount of research to disentangle cause from effect. We're still trying to figure out why crime fell nationally in the 90s and why, specifically why, it rose during Covid! For reasons that would take a lot to get into, I'm very skeptical of the typical reasons given for the far more sustained, and far larger crime drops that occurred in LA and NYC from 1990 to 2010 or so.
Given that the experts have little idea of what's working, I just find myself relatively unconcerned on whether or not the public *thinks* they understand.
It is certainly true that experts, police, politicians, and activists disagree about what programs and actions lead to reductions or increases in crime.
I’m willing to assume that crime rises and falls because of a mix of factors, some which have little to do with local actions and inactions.
But that doesn’t mean that we know nothing about what increases or decreases crime. We also learn as we experiment.
Regardless of how much we know about best practices, public pressure to change or public satisfaction does motivate politicians to either change policies or stay the course. Constant policy changes are almost doomed to fail, since even if the change is a good one, in a few years the public will demand another. Like with almost anything, consistent effort over time produces results.
Jeff, at least you, with your data-driven voice of reason, seem to be gaining traction in the Big Nooz' arena since your name is increasingly mentioned in crime articles. Good work.
People refuse to accept the dropping-crime data because their TeeVee feed is full of crime and murder. The Media blasts every crime that DOES occur (the bloodier the better) - plus, much of our "entertainment" is based on fictional crime/murder. Since so many of us are Irrational, Illogical and Ill-Informed, we're unable to tell the difference between the fake crimes we see every night and the data-based crime reality.
Maybe better instruction on Logic and Math in school would help? On 2nd thought - Nah!
This is one of those poll answers that I take more as meaning "crime is much worse than it should be". Which it is. If you compare our crime rates (take away guns, even beyond that) vs. developed European and especially developed Asian cities, it is a disaster. People rightfully are responding in a manner that says "crime is not OK" because they understand (again, rightly) that these polling questions are fishing BS meant to excuse our pathetic crime rates.
Look at Jeff's posts even. 8 out of 10 are excusing crime in some way or form. Or trying to imply that - since it is better than the height of the crack era - that we should be happy and not push for more anti-crime policies. The truth is many, many more people in this country should be in jail (take public transport for a day in any major city and it's more than obvious), and people like Jeff do whatever they can to prevent that happening because they have sociopathic sympathy for criminals.
Can you point to a post where Jeff excuses crime. I don't read every post super closely, so perhaps I missed it, but I can't remember any post where he advocates for policies one way or another. All I can remember is him trying to get the stats right.
Take 2 minutes to understand subtext. When he posts about people's subjective opinions of crime diverging from reality, the implication is that people are dumb and fooled by media into caring about crime.
Think about it this way: "does this post that Jeff made suggest that we should have softer or harsher penalties against crime?"
In 2020/2021, he was writing about the rise in crime. Do you think the "sub-text" of his writing then was harsher penalties on crime?
Some people see their job as reporting the facts, allowing folks to make smart decisions based on those facts. It's important to know that crime has been falling fast over the last two years. One can then have a discussion about whether that means we should be doing even more to drive it lower or focus on other priorities.
But to see reporting those numbers as "excusing crime" is idiocy. The same kind of idiocy that leads to the firing of the head of the BLS because folks don't like the numbers.
"One can then have a discussion about whether that means we should be doing even more to drive it lower or focus on other priorities."
The fact that you can even make this ghoulish statement shows how far removed from the median American you are (same as Jeff).
Please take one second to realize that as a heckin' good progressive, you have significantly (SIGNIFICANTLY) higher tolerance for crime and disorder than the median American does. You also have significantly higher sympathy for criminals than the median American does (again, like Jeff).
Your statement is like Burkina Faso seeing its GDP per Capita going from $2k to $3k and saying "well, maybe we should start focusing on other things now". Pure evil.
As it happens, I'm fully in favor of continuing to drive the crime rate lower. Don't think it has anything to do with longer sentences, but I'd certainly invest more money in both the manpower and technology to make it far more likely that criminals are caught and convicted (which is real solution to deterring crimes). Also believe in leveraging the police and other groups to enforce public order.
Again, you're just making things up and thinking that the use of words like "ghoulish" somehow makes your ranting more effective. But I suppose we shouldn't expect more from anonymous keyboard warriors like yourself who are embarrassed to post under their actual names.
I take public transport in biggest US city virtually every day.
Please share your secret for determining which of my fellow passengers "should be in jail". (You can spare us your opinions about those who should be choked to death by vigilantes -- but I imagine you approve of that as well)
We can’t allow transit employees to enforce fare rules in local subways because of the real fear the employees have of being assaulted. Think about that for a second. Imagine explaining that to a South Korean or someone from Japan.
And the reason this happens is entirely due to people like you. Sociopathic and suicidal empathy for people that would - without hesitation - rob you and leave you dying in a pool of blood while walking away laughing at you.
And yet, decades on, after riding the MTA at all hours of the day of night, I can count the times I've been left "dying in a pool of blood" on the fingers of no hands, your depraved apocalyptic fantasies notwithstanding.
Yes, because despite the best efforts of people like you, we still have at least some laws against criminality, and the majority of people that would gladly stab you and laugh about it, don't do so for fear of getting caught. You're a naive moron for thinking they're not out there, though.
I just want you to remember that things like this:
The USDOJ's National Crime Victimization Survey's record increase in violence? (although that could change when they release new data soon).
Record fear of crime per Gallup and multiple other sources?
The overwhelming majority of crime is not reported to law enforcement, per BJS? Only 13 percent of rapes and 38 percent of violent crimes are reported in urban areas, according to BJS? Only 30 percent of property crime is reported in urban areas, while acknowledging that 80 percent of what we call crime are property events per BJS?
Jeff does great work, but the obsession with reported crime leaves huge gaps in our understanding of the problem. Last year, reported violent crime decreased 4.5 percent. If only 38 percent of violent crimes are reported in urban areas, it's theoretically possible (however improbable) that violent crime increased, not decreased.
I think we need a broader understanding of crime. We just can't dismiss the perceptions of citizens, and it's their concerns that are driving the conversation.
Jeff's correct, "reported" crime is going down. But does that mean that cities with crime problems are now safe, however one defines safety? I don't think that's how it works.
Politico had this discussion with BLS data, and the Biden administration was frustrated over the fact that the public didn't recognize economic progress. Politico assessed that BLS was using the wrong filters, and the public was correct.
Are we doing the same thing with crime, specifically by excluding the National Crime Victimization Survey?
If only 13 percent of rapes and sexual assaults are reported in urban areas, and recognizing that arrests and prosecutions for reported sexual assaults are few, is that giving "tolerance" for women and girls to be abused?
Reported crimes are filled to the brim with issues. Our use of crime data needs to expand. We just cannot dismiss citizen perceptions. It's more than a bit condescending.
Data-driven means just that, a holistic look at multiple sources, not just one. We don't take one trial for cancer drugs and declare them to be a success or failure. So why do we do it when discussing crime?
Seems like it can be best explained by a broader negativity bias in general?
The news does not report on all the planes that land. It only reports on the ones that crash. A news report about a big plane crash will always get more clicks and more eyeballs than a news report that explains that flying is extremely safe and also safer than it’s ever been before.
The reality is that much of humanity is better off than the 90s across many domains - not just crime - yet few believe it.
Great piece, Jeff. The discussion around crime perception needs to move beyond just media coverage. I think another major piece of this puzzle is the role of police executives themselves.
It's difficult to close the gap between perception and reality when police departments are not a "disinterested party" in the crime statistics they report. Police executives often magnify public fears to push for initiatives they want, like new equipment or more officers (bigger unions, more control, etc) They may even claim that without more officers, "response times will increase", using this fear mongering to pressure city councils for staffing increases. This dynamic, where police are highly incentivized to "cook the books" or misrepresent data for their own political or economic gain, is a significant factor in exacerbating the public's perception of crime. After all, if there's no crime problem, there's no need for police to fix it.
To truly address this, I think we need to stop relying solely on police departments for crime reports and instead turn to independent sources, like journalists and data scientists. This is where the work your team is doing with the Real-Time Crime Index and your new podcast can be so impactful. The rise of AI and its ability to analyze large datasets in real time can provide smaller communities with the tools to contextualize the information they're seeing and ask difficult questions of their police executives. I believe your Real-Time Crime Index is the start of this trend and that the situation will improve in the next decade. We'll see...
Maybe the occasional crime drama where the detectives sit around for the hour, complaining about the lack of overtime, admin memos, and new pension rules, while the phone doesn’t ring.
When you’re deciding to go into The City to stroll, shop and dine, you don’t first consult the statistics. You consider the gang breaking into the Rolex store, or the lady raped in an ally, or the 50 people murdered last week. No matter the statistics, rational decisions are being made by individuals using facts and perceptions, because 100% of the people killed on a subway are dead, 100% of the people robbed by recidivist criminals lose their property. Cities are declining because the fact remains, if you don’t feel 100% safe, you won’t visit. When will the DEMOCRAT mayors and prosecutors in the risky environments realize one of their few jobs is to ensure citizens’ (and visitors’) safety?
I find myself asking a funny-sounding question here, which is simply "does it matter if Americans think crime is getting worse when it's not?"
As long as crime is still a serious problem what does it matter that the average voter also understands the trend direction?
As an analogy, I have no idea if the population of endangered Grey Wolves is going up or down, and knowing the right answer wouldn't really change my support for laws or policies that protect them.
I think it matters a lot. For example, Baltimore is finding a lot of success with a wholistic approach partnership between violence prevention groups, police, prosecutors, and government officials. If you think that crime is getting worse, you might agree with a politician who says that grants to violence prevention programs are a “woke waste of resources”. And the administration cut many of these grants earlier this year.
If you know that crime is decreasing the public is more likely to keep supporting and funding programs that are making a difference. If they always think it is increasing then they are likely to demand changes which makes long-term results hard to come by.
The other way it matters is that many of America’s African-American elected officials are big city mayors (or represent urban districts in Congress). If Americans always think crime is rising it places an artificial barrier on these mayors from becoming Governors and Senators.
It's very hard to say what specifically is causing crime to drop in Baltimore or any other city. Any time you have an unusual crime drop, you'll have virtually every elected official, agency and program being very quick to take credit. But it takes an enormous amount of research to disentangle cause from effect. We're still trying to figure out why crime fell nationally in the 90s and why, specifically why, it rose during Covid! For reasons that would take a lot to get into, I'm very skeptical of the typical reasons given for the far more sustained, and far larger crime drops that occurred in LA and NYC from 1990 to 2010 or so.
Given that the experts have little idea of what's working, I just find myself relatively unconcerned on whether or not the public *thinks* they understand.
It is certainly true that experts, police, politicians, and activists disagree about what programs and actions lead to reductions or increases in crime.
I’m willing to assume that crime rises and falls because of a mix of factors, some which have little to do with local actions and inactions.
But that doesn’t mean that we know nothing about what increases or decreases crime. We also learn as we experiment.
Regardless of how much we know about best practices, public pressure to change or public satisfaction does motivate politicians to either change policies or stay the course. Constant policy changes are almost doomed to fail, since even if the change is a good one, in a few years the public will demand another. Like with almost anything, consistent effort over time produces results.
Jeff, at least you, with your data-driven voice of reason, seem to be gaining traction in the Big Nooz' arena since your name is increasingly mentioned in crime articles. Good work.
People refuse to accept the dropping-crime data because their TeeVee feed is full of crime and murder. The Media blasts every crime that DOES occur (the bloodier the better) - plus, much of our "entertainment" is based on fictional crime/murder. Since so many of us are Irrational, Illogical and Ill-Informed, we're unable to tell the difference between the fake crimes we see every night and the data-based crime reality.
Maybe better instruction on Logic and Math in school would help? On 2nd thought - Nah!
Our crime rate went from 500x that of Tokyo to only 200x. Why are stupid Americans still upset!??
We clearly need more criminal justice reform!
Interesting that Democrats and Independents are pretty closely aligned in their misperception while Republicans are on their own planet.
How about pollsters ask: What multple of Tokyo's crime rate is that in New York City?
Why don't they? Because most Americans would wildly understate it and it would make the pro-crime types (Jeff and his ilk) look bad.
If the facts are against you, argue the law.
If the law is against you, argue the facts.
If the facts and the law are against you, denounce opposing counsel ("pro-crime types").
This is one of those poll answers that I take more as meaning "crime is much worse than it should be". Which it is. If you compare our crime rates (take away guns, even beyond that) vs. developed European and especially developed Asian cities, it is a disaster. People rightfully are responding in a manner that says "crime is not OK" because they understand (again, rightly) that these polling questions are fishing BS meant to excuse our pathetic crime rates.
Look at Jeff's posts even. 8 out of 10 are excusing crime in some way or form. Or trying to imply that - since it is better than the height of the crack era - that we should be happy and not push for more anti-crime policies. The truth is many, many more people in this country should be in jail (take public transport for a day in any major city and it's more than obvious), and people like Jeff do whatever they can to prevent that happening because they have sociopathic sympathy for criminals.
Can you point to a post where Jeff excuses crime. I don't read every post super closely, so perhaps I missed it, but I can't remember any post where he advocates for policies one way or another. All I can remember is him trying to get the stats right.
Take 2 minutes to understand subtext. When he posts about people's subjective opinions of crime diverging from reality, the implication is that people are dumb and fooled by media into caring about crime.
Think about it this way: "does this post that Jeff made suggest that we should have softer or harsher penalties against crime?"
Jeff's been studying crime for more than a decade since being embedded with New Orleans' multi-agency gang unit in the mid-2010s:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-asher-b039a766/
In 2020/2021, he was writing about the rise in crime. Do you think the "sub-text" of his writing then was harsher penalties on crime?
Some people see their job as reporting the facts, allowing folks to make smart decisions based on those facts. It's important to know that crime has been falling fast over the last two years. One can then have a discussion about whether that means we should be doing even more to drive it lower or focus on other priorities.
But to see reporting those numbers as "excusing crime" is idiocy. The same kind of idiocy that leads to the firing of the head of the BLS because folks don't like the numbers.
"One can then have a discussion about whether that means we should be doing even more to drive it lower or focus on other priorities."
The fact that you can even make this ghoulish statement shows how far removed from the median American you are (same as Jeff).
Please take one second to realize that as a heckin' good progressive, you have significantly (SIGNIFICANTLY) higher tolerance for crime and disorder than the median American does. You also have significantly higher sympathy for criminals than the median American does (again, like Jeff).
Your statement is like Burkina Faso seeing its GDP per Capita going from $2k to $3k and saying "well, maybe we should start focusing on other things now". Pure evil.
As it happens, I'm fully in favor of continuing to drive the crime rate lower. Don't think it has anything to do with longer sentences, but I'd certainly invest more money in both the manpower and technology to make it far more likely that criminals are caught and convicted (which is real solution to deterring crimes). Also believe in leveraging the police and other groups to enforce public order.
Again, you're just making things up and thinking that the use of words like "ghoulish" somehow makes your ranting more effective. But I suppose we shouldn't expect more from anonymous keyboard warriors like yourself who are embarrassed to post under their actual names.
I take public transport in biggest US city virtually every day.
Please share your secret for determining which of my fellow passengers "should be in jail". (You can spare us your opinions about those who should be choked to death by vigilantes -- but I imagine you approve of that as well)
You’re such a smarmy little weasel.
We can’t allow transit employees to enforce fare rules in local subways because of the real fear the employees have of being assaulted. Think about that for a second. Imagine explaining that to a South Korean or someone from Japan.
And the reason this happens is entirely due to people like you. Sociopathic and suicidal empathy for people that would - without hesitation - rob you and leave you dying in a pool of blood while walking away laughing at you.
And yet, decades on, after riding the MTA at all hours of the day of night, I can count the times I've been left "dying in a pool of blood" on the fingers of no hands, your depraved apocalyptic fantasies notwithstanding.
Yes, because despite the best efforts of people like you, we still have at least some laws against criminality, and the majority of people that would gladly stab you and laugh about it, don't do so for fear of getting caught. You're a naive moron for thinking they're not out there, though.
I just want you to remember that things like this:
https://abc7ny.com/post/police-man-punches-woman-asked-put-cigarette-subway-bronx/17636621/
Are entirely your fault. And I'm not being figurative here. You have blood on your hands for your psychotic pro-criminal sympathy.
Trolls gonna troll. Please don't feed.
Things to consider:
The USDOJ's National Crime Victimization Survey's record increase in violence? (although that could change when they release new data soon).
Record fear of crime per Gallup and multiple other sources?
The overwhelming majority of crime is not reported to law enforcement, per BJS? Only 13 percent of rapes and 38 percent of violent crimes are reported in urban areas, according to BJS? Only 30 percent of property crime is reported in urban areas, while acknowledging that 80 percent of what we call crime are property events per BJS?
Jeff does great work, but the obsession with reported crime leaves huge gaps in our understanding of the problem. Last year, reported violent crime decreased 4.5 percent. If only 38 percent of violent crimes are reported in urban areas, it's theoretically possible (however improbable) that violent crime increased, not decreased.
I think we need a broader understanding of crime. We just can't dismiss the perceptions of citizens, and it's their concerns that are driving the conversation.
Jeff's correct, "reported" crime is going down. But does that mean that cities with crime problems are now safe, however one defines safety? I don't think that's how it works.
Politico had this discussion with BLS data, and the Biden administration was frustrated over the fact that the public didn't recognize economic progress. Politico assessed that BLS was using the wrong filters, and the public was correct.
Are we doing the same thing with crime, specifically by excluding the National Crime Victimization Survey?
If only 13 percent of rapes and sexual assaults are reported in urban areas, and recognizing that arrests and prosecutions for reported sexual assaults are few, is that giving "tolerance" for women and girls to be abused?
Reported crimes are filled to the brim with issues. Our use of crime data needs to expand. We just cannot dismiss citizen perceptions. It's more than a bit condescending.
Data-driven means just that, a holistic look at multiple sources, not just one. We don't take one trial for cancer drugs and declare them to be a success or failure. So why do we do it when discussing crime?
Seems like it can be best explained by a broader negativity bias in general?
The news does not report on all the planes that land. It only reports on the ones that crash. A news report about a big plane crash will always get more clicks and more eyeballs than a news report that explains that flying is extremely safe and also safer than it’s ever been before.
The reality is that much of humanity is better off than the 90s across many domains - not just crime - yet few believe it.
Great piece, Jeff. The discussion around crime perception needs to move beyond just media coverage. I think another major piece of this puzzle is the role of police executives themselves.
It's difficult to close the gap between perception and reality when police departments are not a "disinterested party" in the crime statistics they report. Police executives often magnify public fears to push for initiatives they want, like new equipment or more officers (bigger unions, more control, etc) They may even claim that without more officers, "response times will increase", using this fear mongering to pressure city councils for staffing increases. This dynamic, where police are highly incentivized to "cook the books" or misrepresent data for their own political or economic gain, is a significant factor in exacerbating the public's perception of crime. After all, if there's no crime problem, there's no need for police to fix it.
To truly address this, I think we need to stop relying solely on police departments for crime reports and instead turn to independent sources, like journalists and data scientists. This is where the work your team is doing with the Real-Time Crime Index and your new podcast can be so impactful. The rise of AI and its ability to analyze large datasets in real time can provide smaller communities with the tools to contextualize the information they're seeing and ask difficult questions of their police executives. I believe your Real-Time Crime Index is the start of this trend and that the situation will improve in the next decade. We'll see...
Maybe the occasional crime drama where the detectives sit around for the hour, complaining about the lack of overtime, admin memos, and new pension rules, while the phone doesn’t ring.
When you’re deciding to go into The City to stroll, shop and dine, you don’t first consult the statistics. You consider the gang breaking into the Rolex store, or the lady raped in an ally, or the 50 people murdered last week. No matter the statistics, rational decisions are being made by individuals using facts and perceptions, because 100% of the people killed on a subway are dead, 100% of the people robbed by recidivist criminals lose their property. Cities are declining because the fact remains, if you don’t feel 100% safe, you won’t visit. When will the DEMOCRAT mayors and prosecutors in the risky environments realize one of their few jobs is to ensure citizens’ (and visitors’) safety?
I will definitely check out your podcast!