CHAPTER 1
CRIME—AN OVERVIEW

CRIME

The U.S. Department of Justice defines crime as all behaviors and acts for which society provides formally approved punishments. Written law, both federal and state, defines which behavior is criminal and which is not. Some behaviors—murder, robbery, and burglary—have always been considered criminal. Other actions, such as domestic violence or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, were only recently added to the list of criminal offenses. Other changes in our society have also influenced crime. For example, the widespread use of computers provides new opportunities for white-collar crime, as well as adding a new word—"cybercrime"—to our vocabulary.

Two main government sources collect crime statistics. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) annually compiles the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The UCR collects data from about 17,000 city, county, and state law enforcement agencies, whose jurisdictions contain approximately 95 percent of the total U.S. population. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), prepared by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), bases its findings on an annual survey of 100,000 people.

Criminal behavior can range from actions as simple as taking chewing gum from a store without paying to those as tragic and violent as murder. Most people have broken the law, wittingly or unwittingly, at some time in their lives. Therefore, the true extent of criminality is impossible to measure. Researchers can keep records only of what is reported by victims or known to the police.

FACTORS IN THE RATE OF CRIME

The FBI lists many factors that can influence the rate of crime in a particular area, including:

• Population density and degree of urbanization (big city growth).
• Variations in the makeup of the population, particularly where youth is most concentrated.
• Stability of the population—residents' tendencies to move around (mobility), commuting patterns, and length of time residing in the area (transient factors).
• Types and condition of transportation and highway systems available.
• Economic conditions, including average income, poverty, and job availability.
• Cultural conditions, such as educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
• Family conditions with respect to divorce and family togetherness.
• Climate and weather.
• Effectiveness of law enforcement agencies.
• Policies of other parts of the criminal justice system (prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
• Attitudes of residents toward crime.
• Crime-reporting practices of the citizens.

CRIME ON THE DECLINE

In the 1990s much of the public believed the crime rate was increasing. The randomness of crime (drive-by shootings, driveway robberies), along with sensational news reporting, fed this belief. The BJS reported, in Perceptions of Neighborhood Crime, 1995 (Carol J. DeFrances and Steven K. Smith, Washington, D.C., 1998), that about 7.3 percent of U.S. households reported crime as a major problem in their neighborhoods. Not surprisingly, households in central cities were twice as likely (14.5 percent) to feel that crime was a serious problem. In 1995 19.6 percent of black central-city households identified

crime as a neighborhood problem, compared to 13 percent of white central-city households.

According to FBI, state, and city reports, however, the crime rate has been dropping steadily since 1991. During that period the number of crimes in the United States declined from 14.9 million crimes in 1991 to 13.7 million in 2002, a decrease of 8 percent.

That general trend continued through the first six months of 2003, although more modestly than in previous years, according to preliminary UCR data released by the FBI. The violent crime index total was down by 3.1 percent in 2003 from the same time period in 2002, while the property crime index decreased by 0.8 percent. (See Table 1.1.) While these trends were encouraging, no society has ever been totally free of crime. James Alan Fox, dean of the College of Criminal Justice at Boston's Northeastern University, notes, "We're moving in the right direction, but we have a long way to go still before we can claim victory over our crime problem."

Why the Decline?

Experts have attempted to identify key factors contributing to the marked trend. The statistics suggest that as the baby boomers (the generation born between 1946 and 1965) outgrew their prime crime years, the crime rate began to decline. Some observers also attribute this decline to other factors, including:

• More money spent on law enforcement.
• Stiffer sentences handed down by the courts.
• The growing number of neighborhood watch programs.
• The declining number of neighborhood bars.

Others argue the decline in crime was due to the increases in incarcerations (people being jailed). From 1980 through 1995 the population in federal and state prisons more than tripled from 329,821 to 1,104,074. At midyear 2002 the number of prisoners, including city and county jail inmates, reached just over 2 million. Between 1990 and 2002 the annual incarceration rate—the number of persons in custody per 100,000 residents—rose from 458 to 702, an increase from a rate of 690 in 2001.

Urban police officers attribute the decline in crime to an increase in the number of police officers and the creation of gang and violent-crime task forces. They also praise citizens who joined crime watch organizations. In a 1995 Chicago study, researchers found that urban neighborhoods with a strong sense of community and shared values had markedly lower rates of violence (Robert J. Sampson et al., "Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy," Science, vol. 277, August 15, 1997). Of special importance, the study noted, was the "willingness of residents to intervene in the lives of children," especially in the areas of truancy, graffiti, and teenage gang participation, such as hanging out on neighborhood street corners. Others posit that the booming economy of the 1990s, with its low unemployment figures and rising wages, had some effect on crime. Other theories maintain that it is a combination of these or other factors.

Causes of the Earlier Crime Increase

If crime actually declined through the 1990s, what factors lay behind the apparent increase in crime that started in the 1960s and continued through the 1980s? Experts differ as to whether the increase in reported crime for that period was real. Some believe the increase only reflected better record-keeping and participation of more local law enforcement agencies in the FBI reporting system. Others attribute the long-term increase in the crime rate to the growing up of the baby boom generation. As this population bulge entered its juvenile years, it was only natural, they argue, that the crime rate would increase. In general, males between the ages of 15 and 24 commit the most crimes. Males born during the post-war baby boom—that is, from 1945 through 1964—would be between the ages of 15 and 24 from 1960 through 1988.

Neither the FBI nor the BJS has provided official interpretations as to why the crime rate increased in the late 1980s. Unofficial observations generally attributed the increase to the influence of drug use and drug trafficking, especially involving "crack" cocaine. A large proportion of convicted offenders were on drugs while committing the crimes for which they were sentenced.

Many crimes, including murder, are committed during drug transactions. Various theories have been proposed to explain why youth gangs exist; however, many gangs exist to conduct business: drug trafficking. While some gangs restrict their activities primarily to drug dealing, other gangs deal drugs as a means of earning money to engage in other activities. The development of crack (a less expensive, more marketable form of cocaine) in the 1980s provided gangs throughout the United States with a money-making commodity. Gang wars over territory or "turf" led to many deaths of gang members and innocent bystanders. Some gangs, often with strong ethnic ties such as the Chinese "tongs" or the Jamaican "posses," became dedicated to the drug trade and participated in brutal crimes.

INCREASES PREDICTED

Some criminologists predict that all crime rates will increase through the early years of the twenty-first century, as the children of the baby boomers (the "boomerang" or "boomlet" generation) become teenagers and young adults. Experts such as Dr. James Alan Fox think that a resurgence in juvenile crime, in particular, may be imminent based on the projected growth of the juvenile population. According to estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of juveniles 15 to 17 years of age—the group responsible for two-thirds of all juvenile arrests—will increase by 19 percent by 2007. Recent statistics indicate a diminishing rate of decline in juvenile crime. Juvenile crime declined by 50 percent from 1994 to 1999, and declined 5 percent from 1999 to 2000. For the first two months of 2002, gang homicides in Los Angeles tripled from the same period in 2001, as reported in The New York Times.

DECREASES NOTED IN 2003

The general trend of a declining crime rate in recent years continued in 2003, according to preliminary UCR data released by the FBI in 2003. (See Table 1.1.) For the nation as a whole, in the first 6 months of 2003 data indicated a 3.1 percent decrease in violent crime and a decrease of 0.8 percent in property crime since 2002.

According to the preliminary data for 2003 for violent crimes, robbery decreased by 0.5 percent, murder rose by 1.1 percent, forcible rape decreased by 4.0 percent, and aggravated assault decreased by 4.4 percent. Among property crimes, the FBI's 2003 preliminary data showed an increase of 0.9 percent in motor vehicle theft, a 1.0 percent decrease in burglary, a 10.0 percent decrease in arson, and a decrease of 1.1 percent in larceny-theft since 2002.

By region, preliminary violent crime totals for 2003 decreased by 6.2 percent in the nation's Midwest, by 3.2 percent in the South, by 2.4 percent in the Northeast, and by 1.1 percent in the West. Violent crime offenses decreased in the nation's cities, as well, with the largest decrease of 4.4 percent recorded in cities with populations of over one million. The only increase, 0.6 percent, was recorded in cities with populations from 50,000 to 99,999. (See Table 1.1.)

THE UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS

The FBI compiles various sets of crime statistics. In one category the FBI tracks the number of crimes by type as reported by local police. The more serious crime types are included in the Crime Index. A second category tracks cleared offenses. Cleared offenses are crimes for which at least one person is arrested, charged, and turned over to the court for prosecution. This does not necessarily mean the person arrested is guilty or will be convicted of the crime.

The Crime Index tabulates the violent crimes of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, and the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Arrest statistics include information on many different crimes, such as drug violations, fraud, runaways, and vagrancy. Various trends and patterns can be interpreted from these statistical categories.

Highest Rates in the Cities

While crime is certainly not limited to the cities, it is far more likely to occur in urban areas than in rural areas. According to the Crime Index, crime rate in metropolitan statistical areas during 2002 was 4,409.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. (As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, a "metropolitan statistical area," or MSA, is an urbanized area including a central city of 50,000 residents or more, or a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area of at least 50,000 inhabitants and a total metropolitan population of 75,000 in New England and at least 100,000 elsewhere.) In cities outside the metropolitan areas (a city or urbanized area not meeting the qualifications for an MSA) the rate was 4,524.0 per 100,000, over 2.25 times higher than in rural areas (1,908 per 100,000 inhabitants). (See Table 1.2.) The crime with the greatest disparity between MSAs and rural rates, robbery, occurred about 11 times more often in metropolitan areas than in rural areas. The incidence of motor vehicle theft was about 3.5 times higher in MSAs than in rural areas.

Crime Index total rates in smaller cities, while just slightly higher than those in metropolitan areas, displayed different characteristics. In 2002 the overall rate of violent crime was higher in metropolitan areas (545.6 per 100,000 residents) than in smaller cities (403.1). In all categories of violent crime except forcible rape, the rate was higher in metropolitan areas. The rate of property crime was higher in cities outside metropolitan areas than within metropolitan areas (4,121.0 and 3,863.5 per 100,000, respectively). Among property crimes, larceny-theft occurred at a significantly higher rate in smaller cities (3,107.9 per 100,000 residents) than in metropolitan areas (2,596.4).

URBAN RATES.

According to the Crime Index, the nation's largest cities (over one million in population) reported a 4.4 percent decrease in violent crimes from January to June 2003. (See Table 1.1.) By comparison, during that same period, the rate of violent crime was down by 2.6 percent in cities with populations between 100,000 and 249,999.

In the first six months of 2003, murders were up by 5.7 percent in cities with over one million in population, compared to the same period in 2002. The largest increase in murders during this time was 8.3 percent in cities with populations between 100,000 and 249,999, closely followed by a 6.0 percent increase in murders in cities with under 10,000 in population. In contrast, murders declined by 3.9 percent in cities with populations of between 500,000 and 999,999. The percentage of forcible rapes during the first six months of 2003 were highest in cities with over one million in population (2.3 percent), while forcible rapes were down by as much as 10.5 percent in cities of 500,000 to 999,999.

Property crimes such as larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft also declined in large cities of one million or more residents, while rising in cities with under 10,000 population. The only increase in burglaries (1.2 percent) occurred in cities with populations over one million. Motor vehicle thefts were up by 3.4 percent in cities with populations between 100,000 and 249,000, followed by an increase of 3.2 percent in cities with populations between 25,000 and 49,999.

Regional Differences

Distinct crime patterns are also commonly evident between different regions of the nation. In 2002 the South, the most populous region, had the highest crime rates for both violent crimes (571.0 per 100,000 residents) and property crimes (4,151.0 per 100,000). The Northeast, the least populous region, had the lowest property crime rate (2,472.6 per 100,000) and the lowest violent crime rate (416.5 per 100,000). (See Figure 1.1.)

ARRESTS

In 2002 law enforcement agencies nationwide made 13.7 million arrests for all criminal infractions excluding traffic violations. This figure includes all offenses reported by local law enforcement agencies to the FBI, including crimes not counted in the FBI's tabulations on specific crimes. There were 620,510 arrests for Crime Index violent crimes and 1.6 million arrests for Crime Index property crimes in 2002, for a total of 2.2 million arrests. Of the arrests for Crime Index offenses, larceny-theft arrests accounted for the greatest number (1.16 million), followed by aggravated assault (472,290), burglary (288,291) and motor vehicle theft (148,943). Non-Crime Index arrests for drug abuse violations (1.53 million), driving under the

influence (1.46 million), and public drunkenness (572,735) accounted for over one-fourth (25.7 percent) of all arrests in 2002. (See Table 1.3.)

Age

In 2002 arrestees under the age of 25 accounted for 46.4 percent of persons arrested for all criminal offenses nationwide, and 54.2 percent of persons arrested for Crime Index offenses. (See Table 1.4.) Arrestees under 21 accounted for 31.3 percent of all arrests and 41.1 percent of arrests for Crime Index offenses. Persons under 18 comprised 16.5 percent of all arrests and 25.7 percent of arrests for Crime Index offenses in 2002, while persons under 15 accounted for 5.2 percent of all arrests.

In 2002 persons under 25 accounted for 43.7 percent of violent crime arrests and 58.2 percent of property crime arrests. People in this young age group represented a large percentage of those arrested for many crimes:

• Arson (67.8 percent)
• Burglary (62.6 percent)
• Liquor law violations (78.9 percent)
• Motor vehicle theft (63.8 percent)
• Robbery (61.4 percent)
• Vandalism (68 percent)

Arrests of persons under 18 years of age (considered juveniles by most states) fell 10.9 percent from 1993 to 2002. This compares to virtually no change in arrestees over 18 years of age during the same 10-year period. (See Table 1.5.) Embezzlement violations accounted for the largest increase (73.1 percent) in arrests of persons under 18 between 1993 and 2002, followed by an increase of 59.1 percent increase for drug abuse offenses, and 48 percent for offenses against the family and children. Because curfew/loitering and running away are considered status offenses (crimes for juveniles but not for adults), they are not measured for persons over 18 years of age. Despite these increases, Crime Index arrests for juveniles declined. Arrests for violent crimes like murder and rape dropped significantly in this age group (64.3 and 26.5 percent respectively), as did some types of property crime, like motor vehicle theft (50.4 percent).

Gender

In 2002 men were arrested 3.3 times more often than women. Overall, males accounted for about 6.5 million arrests in 2002, compared to 1.9 million arrests of females. However, from 1993 to 2002, the number of males arrested for all offenses declined by 5.9 percent, while female arrests for all offenses increased by 14.1 percent. While arrests for males under 18 declined by 16.4 percent, arrests for females under 18 increased by 6.4 percent between 1993 and 2002. (See Table 1.6.)

From 1993 to 2002 drug abuse violations accounted for the largest percentage increase in non-status offense arrests for all males (34.5 percent), while for females embezzlement showed the largest increase (80.5 percent). For males and females under the age of 18, arrests for drug abuse violations between 1993 and 2002 increased by 51.2 percent and 120.0 percent, respectively. Offenses against family and children (domestic violence and child abuse) increased by 53.0 percent for all females and 8.1 percent for all males between 1993 and 2002. In 2002

men were arrested most often for drug abuse violations (798,695) and driving under the influence (727,089). Women were arrested most often for larceny-theft (270,467), although the number of women arrested for larceny-theft declined by 14.0 percent from 1993 to 2002.

Race and Ethnicity

Although whites are arrested more often in total numbers, blacks are over-represented in almost all areas of arrests in relation to their proportion of the general population. Hispanics are counted by the government as an ethnic group, not a race, and therefore do not always appear as a separate category in statistics. Hispanics, like blacks, are also arrested more often in relation to their proportion of the population than are non-Hispanics.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2001 whites comprised 77 percent of the population, while blacks and Hispanics accounted for 12.9 and 12.5 percent respectively. In 2002, of some 9.8 million arrests nationwide, about 70.7 percent of those arrested were white and 26.9 percent were black. (See Table 1.7.) American Indians accounted for 1.3 percent and Asians/Pacific Islanders accounted for another 1.1 percent of arrests. About 50 percent of those arrested for murder were black, while 47.7 percent were whites; 63.4 percent of those arrested for forcible rape were white, while 34.0 percent were black. Similarly, 63.4 percent of those arrested for aggravated assault were white, while 34.2 percent were black. Of those arrested for burglary in 2002, 70.4 percent were white and 27.5 percent black. For larceny-theft, 67.9 percent of arrestees were white, while 29.3 percent were black.

Whites were much more likely to be arrested for driving under the influence, other liquor law violations, and running away. American Indians comprised 2.3 percent of all arrests for drunkenness, while Asian or Pacific Islanders accounted for less than 1 percent of such arrests. Driving under the influence accounted for the highest percentage

of arrests among whites (87.8 percent), while gambling accounted for the highest proportion of arrests among African-Americans (68.3 percent). Among American Indians, liquor law violations accounted for the highest proportion of arrests (2.5 percent of all arrests for this offense). Gambling was the crime for which the most Asians/Pacific Islanders (4.2 percent) were arrested.

Offenses Cleared by Arrest

The more violent the crime, the more likely it is that a suspect will be arrested. According to the FBI, for the crimes reported to law enforcement agencies nationwide in 2002, 64.0 percent of all murders, 56.5 percent of all aggravated assaults, 44.5 percent of forcible rapes, and 25.7 percent of robberies were cleared by arrest. Property crimes, such as larceny-theft (18.0 percent), motor vehicle theft (13.8 percent), and burglary (13.0 percent), were least likely to be cleared by arrest in 2002. The fact that a crime is cleared by arrest does not mean that the individual arrested is guilty of the crime or will be convicted of the offense in criminal or juvenile court.

THE "TAKE" FROM EACH CRIME

In 2002 the value of the goods taken in the average crime varied. Generally, the value of goods taken is very low compared to the risk and consequences of the crime. The majority of those arrested in 2002 netted less than $200. In 37.8 percent of cases the value of the goods taken was under $50 and in 22.6 percent of cases it was between $50 and $200. It was over $200 in 39.6 percent of property crimes. Motor vehicle thefts, which are calculated separately, had the highest average loss of all property crimes in 2002—$6,701—up by 2.2 percent from 2001. The average bank robbery in 2002 netted $4,763, down by 6.5

percent from 2001. Robberies of convenience stores resulted in an average of $665 taken in 2002. The average burglary in 2002 resulted in a loss of $1,549, while pocket-picking and purse-snatching accounted for losses averaging $328 and $332, respectively. (See Table 1.8.)

When a criminal steals money, as in the case of a bank robber or purse-snatcher, he or she can usually spend the stolen cash. However, in the case of burglary or motor vehicle theft the criminal almost never collects the total value of the stolen property. While the value of the stolen goods in a typical burglary might be $1,549, the thief has no way to sell it for its real value. He or she usually takes it to a fence (a person who buys and sells stolen goods). The fence may pay as little as 10 percent of the value of the item or items, depending on how easily he or she feels it will be to find a buyer for the stolen property. Thus, a $400 VCR could be worth as little as $40 to the thief.

Recovery Rate for Stolen Property

In 2002 only 36.1 percent of the value of stolen property was recovered. The recovered value of motor vehicles in 2002 was highest, at 63.1 percent, followed by livestock (19.0 percent), clothing and furs (12.5 percent), consumable goods (10.6 percent), and firearms (8.9 percent). Recovery rates for jewelry, precious metals, and office equipment averaged around 5.5 percent in 2002, while theft victims recovered televisions, stereos, and other electronics only 4.2 percent of the time. (See Table 1.9.)

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE

Federal spending accounts for only about 10 percent of all law enforcement resources. State and local governments have always played the central role in controlling crime. The federal government is required to enforce only laws within its jurisdiction, such as forgery and espionage,

and to operate prisons for those convicted of federal crimes. Yet the federal government at times has responded to increased public concern over violent crime (like after the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001) by expanding its law enforcement role. Federal agencies can encourage cooperation among state and local governments and act with foreign governments to curb threats such as the spread of terrorism, drug-related crime, and organized crime. The federal government is better able than the states to collect national crime statistics and give out information. It also develops and promotes new technologies, such as crime databases, fingerprint facilities, and DNA-testing laboratories, to serve both national and local needs.

2002 Federal Budget

The Federal Budget for fiscal year 2002 allocated a proposed $4.2 billion to assist state and local governments in fighting crime. Although this level of spending was $1 billion less than in fiscal year 2001, federal assistance to state and local governments for criminal justice expenditures increased by 500 percent from 1992 to 2001.

Of the $36 billion in the Federal budget proposed for administration of justice in fiscal year 2002, nearly half was allocated for law enforcement. (See Table 1.10.) Some of the law enforcement and crime prevention priorities reflected in the FY 2002 budget included funding to prevent terrorism and support for programs to tighten border and transportation security.

The administration's 2002 budget also proposed new funding for prison construction, modernization, and the activation of newly constructed federal prisons. See Table 1.11 for a detailed look at the allocation of Office of Justice program funds from 1990 to 2001, which shows that budget requests for 2001 were about 5.5 times those for 1990.

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (PL 103-322) included several "get tough on crime" provisions:

• A ban on some semiautomatic assault-style rifles.
• A "three strikes and you're out" provision. This provision requires a mandatory life sentence without parole when an offender has been convicted of at least three serious or violent felony crimes and/or serious or violent drug-related crimes.

• Resources for more police, and grants to help involve community organizations in crime prevention programs.

The act also expanded the federal death penalty to apply to more than 50 offenses and provided funding for prison construction projects. A new trust fund—the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund—supported these new programs.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

The U.S. Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women has distributed more than $1 billion worth of grants since its creation in 1995 to state, local, and tribal governments and community-based agencies to assist in efforts to prevent violence against women. In October of 2003 the President's Family Justice Center Initiative was established to help victims of domestic violence by combining often uncoordinated and disjointed local services into Family Justice Centers where medical, legal, counseling, and other assistance can be offered in a central location.

STATE CORRECTIONS BUDGETS

According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, total state spending for corrections in fiscal year 2002 was $38.5 billion, an increase of some 2.6 percent from 2001. Corrections accounted for about 7 percent of all state general-fund spending in 2002. Despite a declining crime rate, the rise in state prison populations accounted for much of the increase, with the construction of new correctional facilities accounting for much of the increase, in addition to juvenile justice programs and such alternatives to incarceration as probation and parole.

States in the Far West had the largest increase in spending for corrections in 2002, at 7.9 percent, followed by the Rocky Mountain states (6.1 percent). States in the Mid-Atlantic spent less in 2002 than they had in 2001, with a decrease of almost 1 percent.