Detroit Ranked Most Dangerous City

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

LarryMullen's POPAngel

Blue Crack Distributor
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Messages
53,698
Location
I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/18/dangerous.cities.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

DETROIT, Michigan (AP) -- In another blow to the Motor City's tarnished image, Detroit pushed past St. Louis to become the nation's most dangerous city, according to a private research group's controversial analysis, released Sunday, of annual FBI crime statistics.

Detroit was ranked the most dangerous U.S. city in a disputed analysis of FBI statistics.

The study drew harsh criticism even before it came out. The American Society of Criminology launched a pre-emptive strike Friday, issuing a statement attacking it as "an irresponsible misuse" of crime data.

The 14th annual "City Crime Rankings: Crime in Metropolitan America" was published by CQ Press, a unit of Congressional Quarterly Inc. It is based on the FBI's September 24 crime statistics report.

The report looked at 378 cities with at least 75,000 people and their per-capita rates for homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and auto theft. Each crime category was considered separately and weighted based on its seriousness, CQ Press said.

Last year's crime leader, St. Louis, Missouri, fell to No. 2. Another Michigan city, Flint, ranked third, followed by Oakland, California; Camden, New Jersey; Birmingham, Alabama; North Charleston, South Carolina; Memphis, Tennessee; Richmond, California; and Cleveland, Ohio.

The study ranked Mission Viejo, California, as the safest U.S. city, followed by Clarkstown, New York; Brick Township, New Jersey; Amherst, New York; and Sugar Land, Texas.

CQ Press spokesman Ben Krasney said details of the weighting system were proprietary. It was compiled by Kathleen O'Leary Morgan and Scott Morgan, whose Morgan Quitno Press published it until its acquisition by CQ Press.

Ranked Most Dangerous
1. Detroit, Michigan
2. St. Louis, Missouri
3. Flint, Michigan
4. Oakland, California
5. Camden, New Jersey
6. Birmingham, Alabama
7. North Charleston, South Carolina
8. Memphis, Tennessee
9. Richmond, California
10. Cleveland, Ohio

Source: CQ Press The study assigns a crime score to each city, with zero representing the national average. Detroit got a score of 407, with St. Louis close behind at 406. The score for Mission Viejo, in affluent Orange County, was minus 82.

Detroit was pegged the nation's murder capital in the 1980s and has lost nearly 1 million people since 1950, according to the Census Bureau. Downtown sports stadiums and corporate headquarters -- along with the redevelopment of the riverfront of this city of 919,000 -- have slowed but not reversed the decline. Officials have said crime reports don't help.

Detroit police officials released a statement Sunday night disputing the report, saying it fails to put crime information into proper context.

"Every year this organization sends out a press release with big, bold lettering that labels a certain city as Most Dangerous, USA," Police Chief Ella Bully-Cummings said in the release.

"It really makes you wonder if the organization is truly concerned with evaluating crime or increasing their profit," said Bully-Cummings, who noted the complete report is available only by purchase. "With crime experts across the country routinely denouncing the findings, I believe the answer is clear."

The mayor of 30th-ranked Rochester, New York -- an ex-police chief himself -- said the study's authors should consider the harm that the report causes.

Ranked Safest
1. Mission Viejo, California
2. Clarkstown, New York
3. Brick Township, New Jersey
4. Amherst, New York
5. Sugar Land, Texas
6. Colonie, New York
7. Thousand Oaks, California
8. Newton, Massachusetts
9. Toms River Township, N.J.
10. Lake Forest, California

Source: CQ Press "What I take exception to is the use of these statistics and the damage they inflict on a number of these cities," said Mayor Robert Duffy, chairman of the Criminal and Social Justice Committee for the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

The rankings "do groundless harm to many communities," said Michael Tonry, president of the American Society of Criminology.

"They also work against a key goal of our society, which is a better understanding of crime-related issues by both scientists and the public," Tonry said.

Critics also complain that numbers don't tell the whole story because of differences among cities.

"You're not comparing apples and oranges; you're comparing watermelons and grapes," said Rob Casey, who heads the FBI section that puts out the Uniform Crime Report that provides the data for the Quitno report.

The FBI posted a statement on its Web site criticizing such use of its statistics.

"These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region," the FBI said. "Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents."

Doug Goldenberg-Hart, acquisitions editor at CQ Press, said that the rankings are imperfect, but that the numbers are straightforward. Cities at the top of the list would not be there unless they ranked poorly in all six crime categories, he said.

"The idea that people oppose it, it's kind of blaming the messenger," Goldenberg-Hart said. "It's not coming to terms with the idea that crime is a persistent problem in our society."

The report "helps concerned Americans learn how their communities fare in the fight against crime," CQ Press said in a statement. "The first step in making our cities and states safer is to understand the true magnitude of their crime problems. This will only be achieved through straightforward data that all of us can use and understand."

The study excluded Chicago, Minneapolis, and other Illinois and Minnesota cities because of incomplete data.

I think we've been in the top three every year for the last few years. Wtg, Detroit! :hi5:
 
I mentioned this in the football thread, but I think it bears repeating here. In 1996, about 15 of us headed down to Detroit to watch the Lions vs. Packers at the Silverdome. We were warned beforehand to be careful while in Detroit, hence we opted to stay across the river in Windsor, Ont.

To say what we saw in Detroit was shocking is an understatement. The streets were dirty and empty. On the Saturday morning before Christmas, when shopping should be at or near its peak, the downtown core was completely empty. I couldn't believe it! We hung around Joe Louis Arena, met Steve Yzerman, visited Tiger Stadium, had lunch and then got the hell out of there before the sun set.

:huh:
 
elevated_u2_fan said:


:lol: It's amazing what a difference there is between Detroit and Windsor... For one thing, Widsor has street lights...

Hey, I know for a fact that South Detroit has street lights. ;)

BonoManiac, there have been slight improvements since 1996, but overall, what they say in the article about it not doing a damn thing to turn things around is true. Young people are leaving the city in droves, as well as older people who have been forced to retire from their jobs at the Big Three due to the economy sucking so much. And, if the economy is sucking, then big shock - crime spikes way the hell up.
 
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:


Hey, I know for a fact that South Detroit has street lights. ;)

BonoManiac, there have been slight improvements since 1996, but overall, what they say in the article about it not doing a damn thing to turn things around is true. Young people are leaving the city in droves, as well as older people who have been forced to retire from their jobs at the Big Three due to the economy sucking so much. And, if the economy is sucking, then big shock - crime spikes way the hell up.

I was just downtown a few weeks ago, and the area right around Joe Louis and the casino is quite nice now. There's some pretty good shopping in that area. I hadn't been into the city in about 5 years before that, even though I live about 20 minutes south of it, and I was pleasantly surprised at that 3 mile area.:lol:
 
U2isthebest said:


I hadn't been into the city in about 5 years before that, even though I live about 20 minutes south of it, and I was pleasantly surprised at that 3 mile area.:lol:

See, what you just said nails this right on the head. I was just there yesterday for the Lions game and if there hadn't been a game I bet anything the city would have been deserted.

Everyone in the suburbs, despite all the new additions (which are quite nice, as I do go downtown once every so often), is still too afraid to come to the city.

It's sad, really.
 
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:


See, what you just said nails this right on the head. I was just there yesterday for the Lions game and if there hadn't been a game I bet anything the city would have been deserted.

Everyone in the suburbs, despite all the new additions (which are quite nice, as I do go downtown once every so often), is still too afraid to come to the city.

It's sad, really.

I definitely feel worried about safety when I go there. I really shouldn't be, but there's just nothing appealing there, other than that short part of the downtown area. There's so many problems in every part of the city that I'd rather just stay away.
 
See Richmond is weird in that it has the rich and poor right next to each other. You walk a block or two day or night and everything's fine. Take a wrong turn and you better be wearing full body armor. My friends at VCU have way too many stories of hearing gunshots outside their dorms, getting attacked in parking lots, etc.

Richmond has also had a higher murder rate than the entire island of Manhattan :ohmy:
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
it would appear that the criminals moved across the river to camden.

springsteen's gonna be pissed.

Camden's always been more dangerous than Philly. It was number one a few years ago. In fact, it's fallen to five, and Philly's moved up 8 spots to 21, so Philly is catching up.

Philly's murder rate is the highest, isn't it?
 
No, Philly has the 9th highest murder rate (27.7 murders per 100,000 residents). Detroit's is highest (47.3 per 100,000 residents). Baltimore, New Orleans, Newark, St. Louis, Oakland, DC, and Cincy all have higher murder rates than Philly.
 
Thanks for the stats.

Maybe it's just seemed like it lately. It's a mess downtown.
 
I've never been to Detroit, but based on what I've heard from other people, that's not that surprising. I do find it slightly surprising that Denver isn't in the top 10, but hey, I'm not exactly complaining about that. Wonder where they'd rank?

How should we respond to the arguments that lists like this don't help matters, that they're not comparing things properly? I think there may be some merit in those arguments, but at the same time, do the reasons for why crime rises in a certain area really differ from place to place? It usually seems like it's the same few factors-poor economy, tension among certain groups of people, stuff like that.

In the meantime, everyone who lives in and around the Detroit area, as well as any other places that are a bit dodgy, stay safe, okay :hug:?

Angela
 
Liesje said:
Don't forget that Sterling Heights and Troy, two Detroit suburbs, are in the top 20 safest cities to live in (based on the 2007 infoplease list).

Detroit has some pretty damn posh suburbs!!

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.html

It certainly does.

Too bad most of the people who live there don't want to spend their money in the city.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
I do find it slightly surprising that Denver isn't in the top 10, but hey, I'm not exactly complaining about that. Wonder where they'd rank?

How should we respond to the arguments that lists like this don't help matters, that they're not comparing things properly? I think there may be some merit in those arguments, but at the same time, do the reasons for why crime rises in a certain area really differ from place to place? It usually seems like it's the same few factors-poor economy, tension among certain groups of people, stuff like that.
Denver is the 87th "most dangerous" city (out of 371), according to their rankings (the complete lists are available here).

As far as criticisms, the most common ones leveled at this particular rankings series seem to be that A) they weight all six crime types considered equally; and B) there tends to be a built-in bias against older cities, since their (typically lower-crime) suburbs are less likely to count towards the crime stats for the city proper than those of younger cities, whose suburbs are more likely to be incorporated. In terms of "reasons," population densities, education levels, age demographics, family demographics, size and operating budgets of local law enforcement agencies, variations in reporting practices, and even climate are all often cited by criminologists, in addition to the two you mentioned.

Personally, I tend to think those are mostly questions of nuance, and not sufficient cause to dismiss the whole thing so long as it's kept in mind that it's only a very broad-stroke snapshot of where the biggest trouble spots are. But, I'm not a criminologist.
 
For the most I certainly don't feel like I'm living in a dangerous place. There are certain parts of Oakland I definitely know to avoid, but Oakland is a big city.
 
Back
Top Bottom