ReportWire

Tag: murder rate

  • Is Trump right that US crime rate is lowest in 125 years?

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump has been celebrating what he says is a major crime reduction achievement in the United States. 

    On at least 10 occasions from Jan. 29 to Feb. 8, Trump has offered a version of this statement: “The crime rate now is the lowest it’s been since 1900. That’s 125 years.” One of those occasions was during an NBC News interview that aired Feb. 8 before the Super Bowl.

    Trump referred to the crime rate, an umbrella category that includes four types of violent crime (murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) as well as property crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and arson). But when contacted for comment, the White House referred to a narrower measure: the murder rate.

    The White House pointed to a Jan. 22 Axios article about the U.S. murder rate hitting its lowest level since 1900. The article cited a study by the Council on Criminal Justice, an independent criminal justice research group.

    In its 2025 Crime Trends report, the council wrote that the 2025 homicide rate is on pace to become “the lowest rate ever recorded in law enforcement or public health data going back to 1900, and would mark the largest single-year percentage drop” on record. The crimes the report cited — murder and non-negligent homicide — are what’s counted in the FBI’s murder rate.

    By the FBI’s definition, “murder” refers to the willful killing of one human being by another, as determined by police investigation and not requiring conviction of a defendant or a coroner’s ruling. 

    Experts told PolitiFact the 2025 FBI murder rate will likely end up at a 65-year low. But saying it’s the lowest in 125 years is less certain, because data prior to 1960 is not comparable to later data.

    Because the methodology was not consistent for all 125 years, “We just can’t say for sure” whether it’s an all-time low, said Jeff Asher, a crime data researcher.

    Overall crime rate statistics 

    Beyond murders and non-negligent manslaughter, the overall violent crime and property crime rates are also lower today than at least any point since the mid-1970s. Both measures have been on a long-term decline, going back to the early 1990s.

    Ernesto Lopez, a senior research specialist with the Council on Criminal Justice, told PolitiFact the group did not examine any other type of crime rate when it cited the 125-year figure, only murder and non-negligent manslaughter. 

    “So we can’t say that violent crime or property crime rates are at all time lows” going back as far as 125 years, Lopez said.

    The rate for murder and non-negligent manslaughter dropped significantly in 2025

    Because it takes time to fully calculate crime data, the council’s report uses trends in the currently available data to project what the 2025 murder rate will be once the FBI calculates and releases final numbers later this year. 

    The Council on Criminal Justice said the rate for murder and non-negligent manslaughter will be about 4 per 100,000 residents. Asher offered a similar projection of about 4.2 per 100,000. 

    Both estimates are below the previous record low of 4.4 per 100,000 people in 2014 — at least when compared with annual rates going back to 1960, when the FBI began using the same methodology it uses today.

    The council and Asher agreed that the 2025 drop of about 20% is likely to become the largest one-year decline ever recorded.

    Issues with historic recordkeeping

    Whether the homicide drop is the lowest in 125 years is less certain.

    Asher said FBI data on murder and non-negligent homicide is not apples-to-apples between 1930 and 1959, because the older data was based on a smaller share of the U.S. population and used definitions different from today’s. Before 1930, the FBI didn’t produce any equivalent data at all.

    The problem with saying it’s a 125-year record, Asher said, is that doing so means including the not-fully-comparable 1930 to 1959 FBI data and 1900 to 1929 data from public health sources. The public health data counted homicides, a category that’s broader than murders and non-negligent homicides because it also includes killings considered justifiable. 

    Lopez said his group has a “high degree of confidence” that once the final numbers for 2025 are released by the FBI later this year, the 2025 homicide level could be “the lowest ever recorded in the United States since 1900”

    Our ruling

    Trump said, “The crime rate now is the lowest it’s been since 1900. That’s 125 years.”

    Trump referred to the overall crime rate, which includes a range of violent crimes and property crimes. But the White House pointed to evidence of a record low murder rate, not overall crime.

    Experts expect that when the final 2025 murder rate, as defined by the FBI, is released later this year, it likely will be the lowest in at least 65 years. 

    Whether it is the lowest in 125 years is disputed, however, because experts say data prior to 1960 is not comparable to later data.

    Overall violent crime and property crime are also at decades-long lows, but it’s unclear whether they are at record lows going back 125 years.

    The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True.

    CORRECTION, Feb. 12, 2026: This version corrects the percentage drop in the murder rate from 2024 to 2025.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gavin Newsom to Trump: Send troops to these Republican states!

    [ad_1]

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) unveiled his plans to combat crime in his state while taking a jab at President Donald Trump‘s threats to deploy the National Guard to Democratic-led cities.

    Newsom held a press briefing on Thursday afternoon, where he announced that he would be expanding the California Highway Patrol in key regions to deter crime. He also suggested that Trump send troops to Republican-led states where there are skyrocketing crime rates while touting his own efforts to deter crime in California.

    Newsom said that Mississippi is the state with the highest murder rate, noting that the state’s murder rate is 180% higher than the city of Los Angeles, which has more people. He also said that the murder rate in Louisiana, the home state of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), is four times higher than California’s.

    “These are not just observations. They’re stone cold facts. And the fact remains, if the President is sincere about the issue of crime and violence, there’s no question in my mind that he’ll likely be sending the troops into Louisiana and Mississippi to address the just, unconscionable wave of violence that continues to plague those states,” Newsom said.

    The states with the highest homicide rates per 100,000 people are Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, according to 2023 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Newsom suggested on Thursday that Trump focus on bringing down crime in those states.

    “Alabama’s top three murder states in America. Where’s the President of the United States? I thought he cared,” Newsom said.” These are his states that voted for him. His state of mind doesn’t seem to be focused on the issue of crime and violence. It’s about an expression of authoritarianism. He reflects and waxes, I think, two of the last three days talking about being a dictator. I hope people pay attention,” Newsom said.

    Newsom’s press office continued to highlight the high crime rates in GOP-led states on its social media account while also taking a swipe at Fox News.

    “Mississippi’s homicide rate is 380% California’s, yet FOX NEWS refuses to cover it!” the account posted.

    Another post read: “Alabama has a homicide rate 290% higher than California’s, but Fox News is choosing to ignore that.”

    The account also posted: “Tennessee’s homicide rate is 220% higher than California’s, why is Fox News not covering it?”

    The fourth post stated: “Missouri’s homicide rate is 200% higher than California’s, but you wouldn’t know that by watching FOX NEWS.”

    Trump has repeatedly threatened to deploy the National Guard to Democratic-led states, including the cities of Chicago and New York City, after deploying troops to Washington D.C. earlier this month. His deployment of troops to D.C. has been met with sharp criticism, with many critics warning that Trump could do the same to other U.S. cities.

    A Reuters/Ipsos poll, released Wednesday, found that just 38% of Americans support Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard in the nation’s capital to combat crime in the city. Another 46% said they were opposed to Trump’s decision, while the rest of respondents said they were unsure.

    Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • D.C.’s Crime Problem Is a Democracy Problem

    D.C.’s Crime Problem Is a Democracy Problem

    [ad_1]

    Matthew Graves is not shy about promoting his success in prosecuting those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. By his count, Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has charged more than 1,358 individuals, spread across nearly all 50 states and Washington, D.C., for assaulting police, destroying federal property, and other crimes. He issues a press release for most cases, and he held a rare news conference this past January to tout his achievements.

    But Graves’s record of bringing violent criminals to justice on the streets of D.C. has put him on the defensive. Alone among U.S. attorneys nationwide, Graves, appointed by the president and accountable to the U.S. attorney general, is responsible for overseeing both federal and local crime in his city. In 2022, prosecutors under Graves pressed charges on a record-low 33 percent of arrests in the District. Although the rate increased to 44 percent last fiscal year and continues to increase, other cities have achieved much higher rates: Philadelphia had a 96 percent prosecution rate in 2022, while Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago, and New York City were both at 86 percent. D.C.’s own rate hovered in the 60s and 70s for years, until it began a sharp slide in 2016.

    These figures help account for the fact that, as most major U.S. cities recorded decreases in murders last year, killings in the nation’s capital headed in the other direction: 274 homicides in 2023, the highest number in a quarter century, amounting to a nearly 50 percent increase since 2015. Violent crime, from carjackings to armed robberies, also rose last year. Some types of crime in the District are trending down so far in 2024, but the capital has already transformed from one of the safest urban centers in America not long ago to one in which random violence can take a car or a life even in neighborhoods once considered crime free.

    Journalists and experts have offered up various explanations for D.C.’s defiance of national crime trends. The Metropolitan Police Department is down 467 officers from the 3,800 employed in 2020; Police Chief Pamela Smith has said it could take “more than a decade” to reach that number again. But the number of police officers has decreased nationwide. The coronavirus pandemic stalled criminal-court procedures in D.C., but that was also the case across the country. The 13-member D.C. city council, dominated by progressives, tightened regulations on police use of force after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, but many local councils across the country passed similar laws. Reacting to public pressure, the D.C. council this month passed, and Mayor Muriel Bowser signed, a public-safety bill that rolls back some policing restrictions and includes tougher penalties for crimes such as illegal gun possession and retail theft.

    As a journalist who has covered crime in the District for four decades, I believe that one aspect of the D.C. justice system sets it apart, exacerbating crime and demanding remedy: Voters here cannot elect their own district attorney to prosecute local adult crimes.

    The District’s 679,000 residents and the millions of tourists who visit the capital every year could be safer if D.C. chose its own D.A., responsive to the community’s needs and accountable to voters. D.C. residents have no say in who sits atop their criminal-justice system with the awesome discretion to bring charges or not. Giving voters the right to elect their own D.A. would not only move the criminal-justice system closer to the community. It would also reform one of the more undemocratic, unjust sections of the Home Rule Act. The 1973 law, known for granting the District limited self-government, also maintained federal control of D.C.’s criminal-justice system; the president appoints not just the chief prosecutor but also judges to superior and district courts.

    “Putting prosecution into the hands of a federal appointee is a complete violation of the founding principles this country was built on,” Karl Racine, who served as D.C.’s first elected attorney general, from 2015 to 2023, told me. (The District’s A.G. has jurisdiction over juvenile crime.) “Power is best exercised locally.”

    Allowing the District to elect its own D.A. would not solve D.C.’s crime problem easily or quickly. Bringing criminals to justice is enormously complicated, from arrest to prosecution to adjudication and potential incarceration; this doesn’t fall solely on Graves or any previous U.S. attorney. The change would require Congress to revise the Home Rule charter, and given the politics of the moment and Republican control of the House, it’s a political long shot. In a 2002 referendum, 82 percent of District voters approved of a locally elected D.A. Four years later, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District’s longtime Democratic delegate to Congress, began introducing legislation to give D.C. its own prosecutor. But her efforts have gone nowhere, regardless of which party controlled Congress or the White House.

    Many Republicans in Congress—as well as former President Donald Trump—like to hold up the District as a crime-ridden example of liberal policies gone wrong, and they have repeatedly called for increased federal control to make the city safer. Ironically, what distinguishes the District from every other U.S. city is that its criminal-justice system is already under federal control. If Republicans really want to make D.C. safer, they should consider empowering a local D.A. who could focus exclusively on city crime.

    In two interviews, Graves defended his record of prosecuting local crime and pointed to other factors contributing to D.C.’s homicide rate. “The city is lucky to have the career prosecutors it has,” he told me. He questioned whether a locally elected D.A. would be any more aggressive on crime. But he also said he is fundamentally in favor of the District’s right to democratically control its criminal-justice system.

    “I personally support statehood,” he said. “Obviously, if D.C. were a state, then part of that deal would be having to assume responsibility for its prosecutions.”

    The District’s porous criminal-justice system has long afflicted its Black community in particular; in more than 90 percent of homicides here, both the victims and the suspects are Black. Since the 1980s, I have heard a constant refrain from Washingtonians east of the Anacostia River that “someone arrested Friday night with a gun in their belt is back on the street Saturday morning.”

    In the District’s bloodiest days, during the crack epidemic, murders in the city mercilessly rose, peaking in 1991 at 509. From 1986 to 1990, prosecutions for homicide, assault, and robbery increased by 96 percent. Over the next two decades, homicides and violent crime gradually decreased; murders reached a low of 88 in 2012. That year, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecution rate in D.C. Superior Court was 70 percent. But the District’s crime rate seemed to correspond more to nationwide trends than to any dramatic changes in the prosecution rate.

    The rate of federal prosecution of local crime in the District stood at 65 percent as recently as 2017 but fell precipitously during a period of turbulence in the U.S. Attorney’s Office under President Trump, when multiple people cycled through the lead-prosecutor spot. (“That is your best argument about the danger of being under federal control,” Graves told me.) After a mob attacked the U.S. Capitol in 2021 and Graves took office later that year, he temporarily redeployed 15 of the office’s 370 permanent prosecutors to press cases against the violent intruders in D.C. federal court. The prosecution rate for local crime stood at 46 percent in 2021 but plummeted to the nadir of 33 percent in 2022.

    “It was a massive resource challenge,” Graves said of the January 6 prosecutions. “It’s definitely a focus of mine, a priority of mine.” But he added: “We all viewed the 33 percent as a problem.”

    Graves, 48, an intense, hard-driving lawyer from eastern Pennsylvania, told me that his job, “first and foremost, is keeping the community safe.” He has a track record in the District: He joined the D.C. federal prosecutor’s operation in 2007 and worked on local violent crime before moving up to become the acting chief of the department’s fraud and public-corruption section. He went into private practice in 2016 and returned when President Joe Biden nominated him to run the U.S. Attorney’s Office, in July 2021. He has lived in the District for more than 20 years. “It’s my adopted home,” he said.

    Graves attributes D.C.’s rising murder rate in large part to the fact that the number of illegal guns in D.C. “rocketed up” in 2022 and 2023: Police recovered more than 3,100 illegal firearms in each of those years, compared with 2,300 in 2021. “D.C. doesn’t appropriately hold people accountable for illegally possessing firearms,” he told me. According to Graves, D.C. judges detain only about 10 percent of defendants charged with illegal possession of a firearm.

    He attributed his office’s low prosecution rates to two main causes: first, pandemic restrictions that dramatically cut back on in-person jury trials, including grand juries, where prosecutors must present evidence to bring indictments. Without grand juries, Graves said, prosecutors could not indict suspects who were “sitting out in the community.” Second, the District’s crime lab lost its accreditation in April 2021 and was out of commission until its partial reinstatement at the end of 2023. Without forensic evidence, prosecutors struggled to trace DNA, drugs, firearm cartridges, and other evidence, Graves explained: “It was a massive mess that had nothing to do with our office.” Police and prosecutors were unable to bring charges for drug crimes until the Drug Enforcement Agency agreed in March 2022 to handle narcotics testing.

    Even with these impediments, Graves said his office last year charged 90 percent of “serious violent crime” cases in D.C., including 137 homicides, in part by increasing the number of prosecutors handling violent crime cases in 2022 and 2023.

    But accepting Graves’s explanations doesn’t account for at least 18 murder suspects in 2023 who had previously been arrested but were not detained—either because prosecutors had dropped charges or pleaded down sentences (in some cases before Graves’s tenure), or because judges released the defendants. (The 18 murder suspects were tracked by the author of the anonymous DC Crime Facts Substack and confirmed in public records.) “Where the office does not go forward with a firearms case at the time of arrest, it is either because of concerns about whether the stop that led to the arrest was constitutional or because there is insufficient evidence connecting the person arrested to the firearm,” Graves told me in an email.

    Last month, the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, a research and advocacy nonprofit, released a report showing that in 2021 and 2022, homicide victims and suspects both had, on average, more than six prior criminal cases, and that most of those cases had been dismissed. Police and nonprofit groups working to tamp down violence described “a feeling of impunity among many people on the streets that may be encouraging criminal behavior.” Police “also complained of some cases not being charged or when they are, the defendant being allowed to go home to await court proceedings,” according to the report, which cited interviews with more than 70 Metropolitan Police Department employees.

    “Swift and reliable punishment is the most effective deterrent,” Vanessa Batters-Thompson, the executive director of the DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, a nonprofit that advocates for increased local governance, told me.

    In January, the Justice Department announced that it would “surge” more federal prosecutors and investigators to “target the individuals and organizations that are driving violent crime in the nation’s capital,” in the words of U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. Graves welcomed the move, which he said has added about 10 prosecutors so far and will create a special unit to analyze crime data that could provide investigators with leads. Similar “surges” have been deployed in Memphis and Houston.

    “But [D.C. has] no control over what that surge is,” Batters-Thompson said—how large or long-lasting it is. Even if federal crime fighters make a dent in the District’s violence and homicide rates, the effort would amount to a temporary fix.

    Electing a D.A. for D.C. would not only take Congress reforming the Home Rule Act. There’s also the considerable expense of creating a district attorney’s office and absorbing the cost now borne by the federal government. (It’s an imperfect comparison, but the D.C. Office of the Attorney General’s operating budget for fiscal year 2024 is approximately $154 million.) Republicans in control of the House are more intent on repealing the Home Rule Act than granting District residents more autonomy.

    But if Republicans want D.C. to tackle its crime problem, why shouldn’t its residents—like those of Baltimore, Philadelphia, Denver, Boston, Seattle, and elsewhere—be able to elect a district attorney dedicated to that effort? Crime is often intimate and neighborhood-based, especially in a relatively small city such as the District. Effective prosecution requires connection and trust with the community, both to send a message about the consequences of bad behavior and to provide victims and their families with some solace and closure. Those relationships are much more difficult to forge with a federally appointed prosecutor whose jurisdiction is split between federal and local matters, and who is not accountable to the people he or she serves.

    Racine, the former D.C. attorney general, was regularly required to testify in oversight hearings before the city council. Graves doesn’t have to show up for hearings before the District’s elected council, though he couldn’t help but note to me that progressive council members have in the past accused D.C.’s criminal-justice system of being too punitive.

    Graves told me that his office has a special community-engagement unit, that he attends community meetings multiple times a month, and that his office is “latched up at every level” with the police, especially with the chief, with whom Graves said he emails or talks weekly.

    “Given our unique role,” he said, “we have to make ourselves accountable to the community.”

    Sounds like the perfect platform to run on for D.C.’s first elected district attorney.

    [ad_2]

    Harry Jaffe

    Source link