11th Annual Most Dangerious Cities Awards

[monsoon]

[monsoon]

[josita]

I am surprised to see that Chicago didn't make this list, not that I am upset or anything .. but I thought that chi-town had the highest homicide rate...

[Spartan]

I'm suprised that Los Angeles didn't make the the list.

I think its interesting that most of the cities on the most dangerous list are East of the Mississippi, and that all of the safest cities (except for NYC and Louisville KY) are west of it. I wonder why that is.

[BigCity]

You have to be very careful in interpreting all of this. Posters are surprised that cities like LA and Chicago did not make it on the list of the most dangerous cities. They are both quite large in population and have numerous violent crimes reported on a yearly basis. However their Police Departments headed by William Bratton and Phil Cline respectively are working hard to get better results. They are succeeding on a modest basis and the crime "rates" for these mega cities do not approach the levels of some of the other cities, despite their reputations. What has happened in NYC is nothing short of phenomenal. I had occasion to visit NYC on a semi regular basis in the late 80's and early 90's and to me the city was bordering on anarchy. You literally couldn't walk down the street in Mid town Manhattan without being accosted by somebody. Now NYC is listed among the safest big cities. Who would of thunk it?? Some cities like Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis and Atlanta that do not fare as well have some of the most affluent and statistically "safest" suburbs. The social and economic dichotomies between city and suburb are especially stark in these places. In any case, if NYC of all places can greatly improve then it can be done elsewhere.

[urbanguy]

Interesting theres a few in the top 17 most dangerous that caught me by surprise like Hartford, Richmond, etc

[monsoon]

[Neo]

I am surprised to see that Chicago didn't make this list, not that I am upset or anything .. but I thought that chi-town had the highest homicide rate...

That's what I thought too, but maybe they've turned that around pronto! However, Chicago's hellish brother city, Gary, IN made the list with not so flying colors.

[M. Brown]

Louisville is the 6th safest? hmm. And a New England City made the top 5. Hartford. What a shame .

[Urbanrailfan]

I'm not surprised Houston didn't make the cut as a dangerous or safe city on th elist. While Mayor Brown was in office, the crime rate in the city was gettin glower. Unfortunately, the murder rate and other crimes become slightly on the increase early this year, but despite that Houston seems to maintain as much safety as possible overall.

This year, Austin is by no means safe. While the murder rate was only 30, including several crime areas being lower, Austin had experienced a number of bank robberies throughout the city; it was a problem citywide. IMO I doubt El Paso is safe either -- Juarez, Mexico is pretty bad across the river.

My hometown, Oakland, may have made #16 as a dangerous city, it is not as dangerous as it was in the past. Here's the kicker: Oakland had 108 murders in 2002, but only 18 of the 108 murdered were innocent victims, while the other 90 were "criminals killing criminals." So rather than jump to conclusion, I have to tell you Oakland is becoming more safer nowadays.

[flamingomonkey]

I am surprised to see that Chicago didn't make this list, not that I am upset or anything .. but I thought that chi-town had the highest homicide rate...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Used to, for one year, 2003. Things got much better in '04 and are going prety well now. Chicago police have said there goal is very simple, to just drive crime out of the city. Unfortunately, this has it's drawbacks. Crime is soaring in many inner suburban areas. CPD is getting rid of all the criminals, just moving them over the border. I live in a very nice town, but you should see the police blotter lately. Armed robberies, home invasions, the odd car jacking and gang related shooting. It does point out the importance of cooperation in metro areas though. Simply moving your problems elsewhere is not a good plan.

[cheeriokid61]

I'm surprised Nashville didn't make the dangerous list. Oh well, I'll get over it. However, Memphis did! Thanks for representing us there!

[MrSmith]

Minneapolis has seen an uptick in crime this year but not like it was 10 years ago when the NY Times call us "murderapolis".

The problem with these rankings is that the numbers are false because of artificial boundries. I remember a road rage incident where the shooter shot a guy after following him for 15 miles -- he shot the guy just on the Minneapolis border so it counted as a Minneapolis crime.

Likewise, almost all of Minneapolis murders are confined to one or two neighborhoods. A friend of mine asked me if i was scared to live in the city. I pointed out to her that she actually lives closer to where all the crime is than i do --even though she is in the suburbs.

[cheeriokid61]

I don't see how St. Louis, Hartford, and Washington, D.C. are more dangerous than New Orleans. I always thought NO to be very dangerous. I mean, six isn't all the great, but I was expecting it to be 2 or 3.

I find it funny that San Francisco made 9th safest, and right across the bay, Oakland is on the most dangerous list.

[PeninsulaKiddo]

I don't see how St. Louis, Hartford, and Washington, D.C. are more dangerous than New Orleans. I always thought NO to be very dangerous. I mean, six isn't all the great, but I was expecting it to be 2 or 3.

I find it funny that San Francisco made 9th safest, and right across the bay, Oakland is on the most dangerous list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Per Capita, there is more crime in DC than almost any city in the country, and that has been a constant factor for decades (hence the mass-migration to the Virginia/Maryland suburbs). Once you get just a bit off the Mall after dark, the city is terribly different. STL is also notoriously dangerous (though apparently in recent years it's been improving). I was a little surprised about Hartford, but I know very little about it. New Orleans... well... the cousin of my best friend's boyfriend got murdered 2 weeks ago in broad daylight in the middle of the city, so I'm not sure what to think about that city...

For SF and Oakland... a few miles can make a tremendous difference in crime. In Newport News, the East End (urban ghetto notorious for murders) is separated by the old, decrepit Downtown Newport News by I-664 and the difference in crime between the two locales is tremendous. Inner-city Richmond is very dangerous, but its suburbs are growing rapidly because they're so safe and they have very good schools. Crime rates can literally vary from street to street. It's a very odd urban "phenomenon"...

[hudkina]

These are not the most "dangerous" cities, these are the cities with the highest rate of violent crimes. There's a difference, especially when you consider that most violent crime is not random.

Also, the bulk of all violent crimes is usually aggravated assault, which is one of two ways assaults are classified. (The other is simple assault.) Simple assaults are not tallied at all in the FBI Uniform Crime Report (on which these numbers are based). And while in some cases there is a clear cut way of determining whether a crime was an aggravated assault or a simple assault, it is up to the police department to determine which type of assault a particular crime is. What one department may classify as a simple assault, another department may classify as an aggravated assault. The FBI UCR Program even states that "Aggravated assault is a troublesome crime to classify". In any case, tracking aggravated assault is definately the least uniform of all crimes tracked.

[paperback]

Crime rates can literally vary from street to street.

[bsutter2]

Can you post the source website?

[TheGerbil]

This is rather misleading data. It appears they are going by city population, rather than metro area population. So cities like, say, Pittsburgh, were left out entirely.

Of cities with over 1 million in the metro area, Pittsburgh is the safest.

[hood]

These are not the most "dangerous" cities, these are the cities with the highest rate of violent crimes.  There's a difference, especially when you consider that most violent crime is not random.

Also, the bulk of all violent crimes is usually aggravated assault, which is one of two ways assaults are classified.  (The other is simple assault.)  Simple assaults are not tallied at all in the FBI Uniform Crime Report (on which these numbers are based).  And while in some cases there is a clear cut way of determining whether a crime was an aggravated assault or a simple assault, it is up to the police department to determine which type of assault a particular crime is.  What one department may classify as a simple assault, another department may classify as an aggravated assault.  The FBI UCR Program even states that "Aggravated assault is a troublesome crime to classify".  In any case, tracking aggravated assault is definately the least uniform of all crimes tracked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In my hometown of Lansing, MI they seem to have a very skewed idea of what some crimes are, they are supposed to consider it a robbery when someone stelas something from a store and assaults an employee in the progress, but they only consider it a larceny. They refuse to file reports on any property related crimes, such as robberies, car thefts or carjacking if they beleive drugs are somehow involved. i know this from listening to a police scanner, these practices seem like they would be illegal to me.

[rusthebuss]

Norfolk can be very dangerous and so can Richmond.

[PeninsulaKiddo]

Norfolk can be very dangerous and so can Richmond.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Norfolk is well on it's way towards doubling last year's murders... Hopefully this year is just a fluke and won't be the continuing trend.

[LItoCT]

I don't know the source of this list but Hartford, with just about 120k residents, should not be on the 250k+ list unless they are going by metro area. However, if this is true, Hartford should not be on the most dangerous list because its suburbs are very safe. Just wondering if anyone could clarify.

[SOCOM]

I don't know the source of this list but Hartford, with just about 120k residents, should not be on the 250k+ list unless they are going by metro area.  However, if this is true, Hartford should not be on the most dangerous list because its suburbs are very safe.  Just wondering if anyone could clarify.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, I never noticed that. It must be a misprint because Richmond doesn't have over 250K residents either.

[rusthebuss]

I'm not surprised Houston didn't make the cut as a dangerous or safe city on th elist.  While Mayor Brown was in office, the crime rate in the city was gettin glower.  Unfortunately, the murder rate and other crimes become slightly on the increase early this year, but despite that Houston seems to maintain as much safety as possible overall.

This year, Austin is by no means safe.  While the murder rate was only 30, including several crime areas being lower, Austin had experienced a number of bank robberies throughout the city; it was a problem citywide.  IMO I doubt El Paso is safe either -- Juarez, Mexico is pretty bad across the river.

My hometown, Oakland, may have made #16 as a dangerous city, it is not as dangerous as it was in the past.  Here's the kicker:  Oakland had 108 murders in 2002, but only 18 of the 108 murdered were innocent victims, while the other 90 were "criminals killing criminals."  So rather than jump to conclusion, I have to tell you Oakland is becoming more safer nowadays.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't Austin in the 600k range. Norfolk is already in the 40's and its only 241k. Austin looks very safe. Norfolk is known to have murders in the 80's too. I'm hoping that we don't get back in that trend. Norfolk can be very ruff. Lots of drugs and such.