« Spotlighting the new widening potential of electronic monitoring | Main | US Sentencing Commission publishes 2021 Annual Report and Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics »
March 16, 2022
New Third Way report details "The Red State Murder Problem"
The "center-left" think tank Third Way has this interesting new accounting of the increase in murders in 2020 in a new report titled "The Red State Murder Problem." I recommend the full report and its linked data, and here is an excerpt:
Of course, one does not need to be a criminologist to notice that most "red states" with high murder rates are southern states, and lots of lots of research has identified relationships between higher temperature and and higher violent crime rates. It would be quite interesting (though probably challenging) to try to run these data by comparing states and cities with comparable climates.The US saw an alarming 30% increase in murder in 2020. While 2021 data is not yet complete, murder was on the rise again this past year. Some “blue” cities, like Chicago, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, have seen real and persistent increases in homicides. These cities — along with others like Los Angeles, New York, and Minneapolis — are also in places with wall-to-wall media coverage and national media interest.
But there is a large piece of the homicide story that is missing and calls into question the veracity of the right-wing obsession over homicides in Democratic cities: murder rates are far higher in Trump-voting red states than Biden-voting blue states. And sometimes, murder rates are highest in cities with Republican mayors.
For example, Jacksonville, a city with a Republican mayor, had 128 more murders in 2020 than San Francisco, a city with a Democrat mayor, despite their comparable populations. In fact, the homicide rate in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco was half that of House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy’s Bakersfield, a city with a Republican mayor that overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Yet there is barely a whisper, let alone an outcry, over the stunning levels of murders in these and other places.
We collected 2019 and 2020 murder data from all 50 states. (Comprehensive 2021 data is not yet available.) We pulled the data from yearly crime reports released by state governments, specifically the Departments of Justice and Safety. For states that didn’t issue state crime reports, we pulled data from reputable local news sources. To allow for comparison, we calculated the state’s per capita murder rate, the number of murders per 100,000 residents, and categorized states by their presidential vote in the 2020 election, resulting in an even 25-25 split.
We found that murder rates are, on average, 40% higher in the 25 states Donald Trump won in the last presidential election compared to those that voted for Joe Biden. In addition, murder rates in many of these red states dwarf those in blue states like New York, California, and Massachusetts. And finally, many of the states with the worst murder rates — like Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina, and Arkansas — are ones that few would describe as urban. Only 2 of America’s top 100 cities in population are located in these high murder rate states. And not a single one of the top 10 murder states registers in the top 15 for population density.
Whether one does or does not blame Republican leaders for high murder rates, it seems that Republican officeholders do a better job of blaming Democrats for lethal crime than actually reducing lethal crime.
Though one might temper reactions to this report with an eye on temperatures, this report still provide a useful reminder (1) that crime challenges are always dynamic nationwide regardless of the political concerns of the moment, and (2) that it will often be much easier for politicians than for data scientists to claim a link between crime policies and crime.
March 16, 2022 at 12:43 PM | Permalink
Comments
Demographics matter. And SF should have very little crime and should be safe. It isn’t. Comparing that to Jacksonville obscures that reality.
We know that the rats are to blame for the Waukesha atrocity.
Posted by: Federalist | Mar 16, 2022 12:50:40 PM
Say the quiet part out loud, Mr. Federalist, so people who don’t read between the lines know the racism you’re selling.
Posted by: Rory Fleming | Mar 16, 2022 2:18:41 PM
Rory Fleming --
The worst mass murderers (e.g., McVeigh, Bundy,the BTK killer) were white. Everyone who follows the subject matter knows this. Some were black, like the Waukesha murderer. It's hardly racism to note this fact, especially in a woke media environment like the one we have now, in which the rare instances of whites killing blacks are played to the hilt, while the more common (but still quite unusual) instances of blacks killing whites, as in Waukesha, get hustled to the back of the newspaper, if they get covered at all.
Want to know who's racist? How about the defense attorneys who gleefully defended the church bombers in the Birmingham massacre from the civil rights days? How about those who know full well that blacks, at roughly 12% or the population but 53% of murder victims -- a grossly disproportionate share -- work for all they're worth to reduce the punishment for murder (and other crimes, which also disproportionately target blacks)?
Looking for racism? That's where you can find it.
The fake snarl of RACISM is just a ploy by liberal fascists to stifle anyone who dares to raise a question about criminal justice "reform." I know Federalist, and I'm happy to say it won't work with him.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2022 2:53:45 PM
Would it be fair to characterize prosecutors as "gleefully prosecuting black defendants" who later were exonerated as being factually innocent?
It's not racism. It's tribalism, Mr. Otis.
Posted by: Drug Cnslr | Mar 16, 2022 5:09:42 PM
Drug Cnslr --
Thank you for agreeing with me that Rory Fleming's accusation of racism is incorrect.
Still, I notice that you immediately pivot away from the overtly racist and celebratory defense of the Klansmen who murdered four little black girls in the Birmingham church bombing in 1963 to talk about "exonerated" black defendants. Did you have in mind that most famous "exonerated" black defendant, OJ Simpson? Say, are you and OJ still looking for the "real killer"? Just asking, since we all know, "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit."
Quite a bunch of devoted-to-justice defense lawyers there too, no?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2022 5:36:37 PM
I notice that you conveniently ignore the main point of my comment, that being that "tribalism" is what is motivating the cult-like devotion to one's own point of view, be it pro-defense or pro-prosecution. Such devotion inevitably destroys one's objectivity, and leads to an increased distrust and hostilities between the various tribes.
Please try to stay on point with your next response. Thanking you in advance.
Posted by: Drug Cnslr | Mar 16, 2022 7:09:48 PM
Drug Cnslr --
You address what you want and I will do the same. You would not be in a position to give instructions even if you didn't insist on anonymity. If a point be made of it, however, "tribalism" is just this year's nifty, faux-intellectual term like "confirmation bias" was a couple of years ago. Both are a net minus in the debate, because they imply (and are used to imply) an equivalency between the competing sides. But there is no equivalency. One side in a prosecution is there to set out the facts; the other is there to advance the client's interests, however soiled and unworthy they may be, by hook or by crook (as long as outright perjury gets avoided).
It's true that both sides occasionally fall short of their goal. But the goal tells us a lot, and it's not the same for both, not by a long shot. It's what the tribe stands for, and not merely that it's a different tribe, that tells most of the tale.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2022 7:56:45 PM
According to Bill, the real racists are defense attorneys who defend clients charged with murder! Wow. I guess you don’t believe in the right to counsel?
Posted by: Curious | Mar 16, 2022 8:41:33 PM
Bill, do you really believe that all the AFDs you litigated against when you were a prosecutor were racists? Or are you just trolling? I'd like to know if you'll defend your claim or qualify it.
Posted by: Curious | Mar 16, 2022 9:06:53 PM
Mr. Otis,
I was so confident that you would address my point directly, using your impressive intellectual and linguistic gifts. After reading your response, I am, sadly, disappointed. I was hoping for so much more.
What your argument boils down to is: "prosecutors, by definition - good", and "defense attorneys, by definition - bad". And "tribalism is just a meaningless catchphrase". Very unpersuasive, Mr. Otis. (Yes, I know it's an over-simplificiation, but it's pretty damn accurate. And I also am painfully aware that paraphrases and interpretations of your words are a pet peeve. I get it. I get it. Please spare us the disapprobation. Thank you.)
I say there are obviously (to paraphrase your President Trump) "good and bad on both sides".
However, in my experience, both sides collectively strive to do good, and on the whole they are good people. Their seemingly opposite goals (which you focus upon almost exclusively) are the two sides of the same coin. But you already know this. Your alternative to this system is...what? No defense, just prosecution? Or the defense attorney always and only being supplicant and subservient to the noble prosecutor?
(And by the way, I never saw a more guilty defendant than O.J., and a more incompetent prosecution team than Marcia Clark and Chris Darden. It was an easy lay-up, and they blew it when they moved the trial to downtown L.A., not to mention the 'glove gambit'. Game over).
Posted by: Drug Cnslr | Mar 16, 2022 9:08:31 PM
Demographics includes wealth—Mr. Fleming. A city full of rich people shouldn’t be violent. SF should be safe. It isn’t.
Posted by: Federalist | Mar 16, 2022 9:29:00 PM
who can ever forget, "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit."
Posted by: anon | Mar 16, 2022 9:32:08 PM
Curious --
"According to Bill, the real racists are defense attorneys who defend clients charged with murder!"
Could you quote where I said that? Should I wait?
Of course you're not going to quote it, since I never said it. It's just the latest in a long line of outright lies on this blog about my position, and you knew it was an outright lie as you were typing it.
If you want further conversation with me, apologize and give your word that you will stop. If you don't, that's fine too.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2022 11:04:52 PM
Drug Cnslr --
"I was so confident that you would address my point directly, using your impressive intellectual and linguistic gifts. After reading your response, I am, sadly, disappointed. I was hoping for so much more."
What you were hoping for was that you would succeed in silencing me on subjects I think are important (like the ethics of the defense of the Klan church bombing) and limiting me to discussing only those you think are important.
Hey, how's that workin' out for ya? Not quite the Commander of the Comments Section you thought you were?
"What your argument boils down to is: "prosecutors, by definition - good", and "defense attorneys, by definition - bad". And 'tribalism is just a meaningless catchphrase'."
Actually it's worse than a meaningless catchphrase because it pretends to be informative while actually intending to obscure, and obscuring, the fact that prosecutors and defense attorneys have very different goals.
"However, in my experience, both sides collectively strive to do good, and on the whole they are good people. Their seemingly opposite goals (which you focus upon almost exclusively) are the two sides of the same coin. But you already know this."
For pure nonsense, those three sentences are hard to beat. The prosecutor is striving for a conviction because he thinks the evidence warrants it and believes in accountability. The defense lawyer is striving for the most favorable outcome for the client -- guilty or innocent, makes no difference. And if the most favorable outcome is a windfall acquittal, hey, so much the better. If the client thus emboldened goes out and rapes yet another five year-old next week, hey, that's someone else's problem and besides she'll get over it.
The idea that these are "two sides of the same coin" is just astonishing.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 16, 2022 11:33:59 PM
Bill,
I think the comments that suggested defense attorneys are racists are these "How about those who know full well that blacks, at roughly 12% or the population but 53% of murder victims -- a grossly disproportionate share -- work for all they're worth to reduce the punishment for murder (and other crimes, which also disproportionately target blacks)?
Looking for racism? That's where you can find it."
That's how I read it. But it sounds like you strongly disagree with that gloss. Care to elaborate?
Posted by: John | Mar 17, 2022 1:40:21 AM
John --
I will quote verbatim what "Curious" wrote: "According to Bill, the real racists are defense attorneys who defend clients charged with murder!"
"[C}lients charged with murder" means exactly what it says, and contains no limitations. According to that formulation (which is his not mine), I think defense counsel are racists when they are defending, e.g., a white charged with killing a white, something that happens thousands of times a year -- but has zip to do with race or racism. Curious's statement is thus absurd on it's face, and to the extent it's not absurd, it's false.
For my money, we have seen more than enough black people get murdered in this country and it escalated again last year. It's time for it to stop. One way of trying to stop it is to attach more and more serious consequences to it, not lighter and fewer consequences. Do you disagree?
To illustrate my views, I referred to the murders of four black children in the Birmingham church bombing. Martin Luther King referred to it as "one of the most vicious and tragic crimes ever perpetrated against humanity." It was done by Klansmen, and if you think racism was absent from the hearts of those who rushed to aid those Klansmen, you go right ahead. "Curious" had nothing to say about that episode, one of the most horrible in the civil rights era. Perhaps he has no interest in it. I wouldn't know. But just walking past it, or walking past the carnage of blacks in the inner cities of this country, or making excuses for it, or indulging those who make excuses for it, inside the legal system or outside, has an odor to it that I and many others find repulsive.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 17, 2022 3:35:38 AM
Hi Bill -
I just disagree with your seemingly prosecutorial bias to crime spikes - more and more punishment which imposes escalating costs on society as a whole (more police, jails and so on) and individuals (criminals, families). More and more punishment for crimes may be emotionally desirable but we should at least try to help potential criminals or minor offenders desist from crime in the first place - I emotionally and intellectually agree with the election of district attorneys who try to minimize incarceration because they recognize that more incarceration should be minimized to the extent that is possible. More and more murders may have a disproportionate impact on blacks but the impact of punishing those crimes also falls disproportionately on blacks - that is what justice reformers are trying to change.
Thank you for reading and considering my comments -
Brett Miler
Posted by: Brett Miler | Mar 17, 2022 12:44:59 PM
Oh my god Bill you're such a snowflake, please stop crying about my very fair characterization of your sweeping attack on criminal defense attorneys. I won't apologize for repeating exactly what you said, which is that defense attorneys are racists if they try to "reduce the punishment for murder" while knowing "know full well that blacks, at roughly 12% or the population but 53% of murder victims -- a grossly disproportionate share."
Presumably, most defense attorneys who defend murder cases know these statistics (there's plenty who went to the same fancy law school as you). I assume all the AFDs you litigated against as a prosecutor are aware. And according to you, they're all racists!
Posted by: Curious | Mar 17, 2022 1:00:42 PM
Here's a quote about defense attorneys from someone who once worked as a prosecutor:
“This system of justice that we’re so proud of in America requires the unpopular to have an advocate and every time a defense lawyer fights to make the government do their job, that defense lawyer has made us all safer."
Senator L. Graham (R)
Posted by: Drug Cnslr | Mar 18, 2022 4:46:59 AM
Drug Cnslr --
1. Sen. Graham is a politician (a pretty good one in my view), and politicians don't like to antagonize powerful groups such as the private bar.
2. But for however that may be, some defense lawyers are heroes, e.g., the ones who defended Kyle Rittenhouse and the Duke lacrosse players falsely accused because their prosecutors had unworthy motives. Other defense lawyers are disgusting, like the ones who defended the Birmingham church bombing, knowing full well, and not caring, that their benighted clients were racist killers.
3. If as you quote the Senator as saying the defense lawyer is doing good every time he "fights to make the government do their job," only about one in twenty qualifies, since, in part in order to do more cases and rake in more fees, 95% of cases are pled out. In pled out cases, the defense lawyer is NOT doing his main job of requiring the government to prove the accused's guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 19, 2022 11:42:34 PM
More bad math and bad arguments from Bill, who claims that "only about one in twenty" defense lawyers "do their job" because "95% of cases are pled out," in order to "rake in more fees." His broad attack on the integrity of the defense bar fails, however, because more than 75% of criminal defendants are represented by public defenders, who do not "rake in more fees" for doing more cases (source: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dccc.pdf). Instead, they plead out cases for reasons that have been amply covered by this blog - overwhelming caseloads, trial penalties, mandatory minimums, etc.
Unfortunately, Bill seems to suffer from the adolescent misimpression that anyone who sees the world differently than him, like the criminal defense bar, must be evil or ill-intentioned. Most people grow out of this stage, but Bill, sadly, is descending back into it during his twilight years.
Posted by: Curious | Mar 20, 2022 11:06:30 AM
