Data posted on the City of Boston homepage, supported by police department analysis, indicates that the murder rate in Boston for 2009 is falling sharply from the 2008 rate. In 2008 Boston had a total of 63 "non-negligent homicides" in the city. The term non-negligent homicides is the term used by the FBI in its Uniform Crime Reports to count all homicides that require some level of intent. However, in 2009, as of Sept. 27, there have been only 39 murders in the city. This averages as a rate of 13 such deaths per quarter. If this trend continues, and the quarterly data seem to support that notion, the total for 2009 should be no higher than 52. That would represent a drop of well over 17% from the previous year. Such a change is hardly normal.
While the data is not in for 2009 UCR projections, the rate of murders per 100,000 persons in the United States fell 4.7% between 2007 and 2008. That is obviously good, but apart from the obvious good in a drop of the murder rate, a drop of 17% is considered phenomenal and bears at least some further investigation.
The UCR is a yearly collection of data from most US law enforcement agencies. We say most because some agencies simply do not assign the resources for reporting their "offenses known to law enforcement." They are not required to report such data. Still, the data reported represents about 90% of the population of the US and is considered to be an accurate measure for the nation as a whole.
If we briefly examine Boston's quarterly data, the change is fairly stark. In the first quarter of 2008 there were 15 murders, while in 2009 the number was 13. In the second quarter, the numbers were 14 and 11 respectively while in the third quarter the numbers were 17 and 15. In the fourth quarter of 2008 there were 17 deaths. If we look at only June, in 2008 there were four such deaths in Boston, and only one in 2009.
What could be the cause for such a drop? Most experts discount police work. Large city police departments such as Boston are about as good as you can find at homicide investigation. Given the explosion in technology, if there is any evidence, a case will largely be solved. The solution rate for murders in the US hovers around 75% to 78% - the highest solution rate of any crime. We also believe it has the highest reporting rate since it is hard to hide a body and hard to make up for someone going missing. It is also considered the best indicator for changes in overall violent crime.
At what criminologists like to call the "macro" or large society level, we tend to look at concentrations of poverty, low education, population density and gun availability as the primary causes of fluctuations in murder and other violent crime. Since the latter three have not changed, and the former has clearly increased in the last year, what gives? Personally, when I began this investigation, I actually assumed the murder rate should have increased rather than decreased.
Some would argue that in these economic times, people are going out less, having fewer interactions with others and the mere probability of a conflict is reduced. Yet, we know that about 75% of all murders occur when the perpetrator has a close connection to the deceased. These could be business, marriage, or other personal relationships. If there is a reduction then, it seems the reduction would have to come from those contacts between people who do not know each other.
People tend to think that murders are committed by people you do not know who hide behind trees. Not true at all. It is rarely random. If we eliminate gang shootings, and robberies gone bad , about 90% of all murders are relationship based. That is, of course, why they get solved - finding the relationships between the victim and others and working from outside in to find the perpetrator is the beginning point for a criminal investigator. As they say, everyone is a suspect, everyone lies and the physical evidence does not lie.
There could, of course, be other reasons. Frequently the difference between a murder and a serious aggravated assault is the quality of trauma care. Boston is one of the finest trauma centers in the world. I find it hard to believe there has been that large an increase in that ability in one year. It could be that there has been a reduction in drug trafficking due to the economy and the stress on demand for drugs. It could also be bureaucratic - the redefinition of what is murder in either police, coroner, or prosecutorial standards. That seems like a stretch for such a large change, but each is a possible cause. In studies carried out in the 90's, classifying crimes as "gang based" varied by as much as 50% depending upon whether you used the standards of Chicago, LAPD, or LA County. In counting crime, definitions matter.
Whatever the reason, the change in Boston murder rates is something to watch. I am sure that comparisons will be coming from other cities throughout the US and those should prove enlightening. We may be seeing a trend which will matter in how we police violence in the US. For example, if people are going out less, perhaps domestic abuse increased. Perhaps, though it seems unlikely, we are becoming less violent. Trends at recent political rallies would offer a counter to that argument. In many ways, one might argue we are on the verge of a surge in violence. The causes of violence, including murder, tend to "lag" as indicators. In other words, we will not know for a year or two or three down the road. Still, it is an interesting finding.
Comments