Homicides in LA Plunge 23% From Year Before

[depakid]

With all the negativity around here, I thought I'd post some positive news for a change.

Homicides tumbled 23% in 2003 and violent crime fell 4.3% for the calendar year, according to final numbers released Friday by the Los Angeles Police Department.

The city ended the year with 505 slayings, almost a quarter fewer than the 658 killings reported the previous year. Also declining were other serious, or so-called Part I, crimes such as rape, robbery and assault.

<snip>

"These were enormous reductions in a time when economically it wasn't a good year for the nation, unemployment was up and we're due to have a rise in the juvenile population," said LAPD Capt. Al Michelena.

More

So why do you think crime was down in LA by what appear to be significant numbers? I'm sure some on the right will argue that it's due to harsh sentencing laws- then again, it could be due to a change in how and where they collect the data. So far I haven't heard any speculation.

[DBoon]

1. Concerted police action against gangs

paying attention to violent crime in poor areas, rather than property crimes in affluent areas for a change.

[Emboldened Chimp]

2. That's because we're a Democratic city

If it were run by Thugs, homicides would've gone up by 23%. Crime in general always goes up when the right has the reigns. Don't people get that by now?

[Just Me]

3. Is this due to the success of "restorative justice"?

I would like to know what they are doing to improve the numbers to that extent. Someone should explore the newer programs they implemented of late.

<misspelled word - too rushed and hurried - poor self-proofer>

[depakid]

4. Some of the drop reflects regional trends

that I've observed, but since I haven't been in LA for a couple of years, I hoped that someone maybe would chime in and confirm a little of what i was thinking. Los Angeles itself isn't a city in the way most people think of one- it's many cities and suburbs combined and spread way out, with meandering jurisdictions that only make sense from a historical perspective.

For what they're worth, my thoughts on the first article are that the numbers to some (though not all) extent reflect a flight from the unreasonably expensive "urban" areas. Crime hasn't dropped that much; some of it's just shifted to other areas.

The LA Times seems to agree- although their editors have trouble explaining it consistently and won't (for various reasons) connect some of the dots:

Check it out:

Bad Year for Crime in High Desert

By Richard Fausset, Times Staff Writer
January 1, 2004

The Antelope Valley experienced a record number of homicides in 2003, a fact law enforcement officials attribute largely to gang activity that has spread from Los Angeles County's urban core to its most remote suburban reaches.

The rise in the number of killings — 43 for the year, up from 26 in 2002 — mirrors unsettling developments in neighboring Ventura County, where officials also cited increased gang activity as a factor in the doubling of homicides in 2003.

The numbers demonstrate the increasing threat that such regions as Ventura County and the Antelope Valley — with their mix of rural, urban and suburban characteristics — are facing from violent street gangs, said Ed Cohn, executive director of the National Major Gang Task Force.

"You are starting to see gangs and threat groups moving out to areas," Cohn said. "For one, they probably think they can get away from the law enforcement and criminal justice scrutiny that they go through in the urban areas."

<snip>

Most disturbing to police, however, is the fact that as many as half of the High Desert's homicides in 2003 were gang-related, underscoring the broader threat posed by violent gang members who once operated almost exclusively in Los Angeles.

More

Of course, Lancaster and Palmdale aren't the only places that people go (far from their work) because they are priced out of the housing market- even in South Central! Lots of other cities have a similar dynamic going (or coming). As talented, diverse and intelligent as we all are, it seems to me that we might start putting our heads together and coming up with workable ways to deal with the myriad problems one small step at a time.

The first small step embraces hope.

[Snow]

5. Interesting thought,

although anything covered by LAPD pretty much is LA, not a suburb or satellite - those places tend to be either covered by the county sheriff, like where my butt is sitting at the moment (Altadena) or have their own force, like Pasadena down the hill from me. There're still reasonably priced (for Southern Cal) neighborhoods actually in LA that aren't slums - a discovered one would be Echo Lake - an undiscovered one would be Eagle Rock - but you're right, lots of people would rather have new houses, and for that at reasonable prices you're in the outer San Gabriel Valley or the high desert. And you'd expect some crime to follow, but having said that, it doesn't look like your numbers come close to making up for the drop in LA. A bigger part of it may be the usual demographic shift that gets police chiefs fame and fortune - a drop in the number of males age 15-25. That has more influence than just about anything. On the other hand, the economy's in the toilet. We should be seeing a rise in crime, esp. property crime, but murder as well. Odd, eh?

(We epidemiologists often study crime epidemics also - it's a lot of fun, and why would you do epidemiology if not for fun?)

[are_we_united_yet]

6. Did the criminals move to phila?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=295010&mesg_id=295010

[AngryAmish]

7. Chicago is still medalist

If you guys want to live in some wimpy "safe" cities, fine. But not for me.

[GRClarkesq]

8. DC still the murder "rate" leader

as opposed to total murders.

4.32 per 100,000 residents. 247 for 2002.

Detroit was 2nd at 4.24.

Compare to NYC with a rate of .72 and 596 murders for 2002.