Stephen Franks has a post about violent crime in New Zealand and compares Central Districts to New York. This is a comment I have just made.
At its peak (1990) the murder rate in New York was 14 per 100,000. In 2006 it had fallen to 4.8
Comparing Central districts is tricky because the number of murders is very small and the fluctuations large. But if you take the average number of murders over the five years to June 2007 you get 1.47 per 100,000
In the 2000/01 year it rose to almost 3 per 100,000.
However, if you look at violence overall, at its peak New York experienced 1180 violent crimes per 100,000. By 2006 this had dropped to 435.
In Central Districts in the year to June 2007 there were 1265 violent crimes per 100,000 population.
So the likelihood of being murdered in the Manawatu, Taranaki or King Country is still less but the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime is considerably greater.
(Leaving aside issues of reporting and recording)
Update; The New York rates refer to state rates. Murder in NYC peaked at 30.8 per 100,000 in 1990 and has fallen to around 6 today. According to the US Dept of Justice in 2002 the overall violent crime rate in NYC had dropped to 790 per 100,000. If I use the latest NYPD stats and 2005 Census population count (not entirely satisfactory) that has now dropped to around 663 - still much lower than Central Districts.
Who’s More Stasi: Britain or Germany?
1 hour ago
1 comment:
Great post Lindsay. NZ is too small to compare murders with other countries, because the fluctuations are so large. Violent crime is a much better comparison because the fluctuatins are smaller and the number is large enough to make sensible statistical comparisons. Well done for pointing this out.
Post a Comment