America's Safest and Most Dangerous Cities

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The reason I question the assertion that poverty correlates with crime  is that when I plot poverty rates for states vs homicides rates I don't see a correlation. You can check the following data for yourself. When there is a correlation the data points should more or less follow a straight line or at least a curved line. But when I plot this data I get something that looks like a shotgun blast, points all over the place. Now it would probably be more accurate to look at city level or county level data. That takes much more time than even a retired geezer would care to spend. But at least at the state level I just don't see a correlation. Let me know if you disagree.

[data]

Points in statistical analysis very, very rarely follow anything that actually looks like a straight line.  You need a correlation coefficient (more on these in a bit) very close to either +1 or -1 for that to happen.  More often than not, it does look like a "shotgun blast", as you put it.  It often is not immediately obvious whether or not a correlation exists.  However, there are methods of analysis that attempt to find a method in the madness.

The first is the method of correlation coefficients, which I mentioned above.  A correlation coefficient, as I said above, is essentially a measure of how correlated two variables are.  Given random variables X and Y, the correlation coefficient r is given by



where E(X) is the expected value of random variable X, μ_X is the mean value of random variable X and σ_X is the standard deviation of random variable X (essentially, how far away from the mean most values of the random variable are).  It would take a while to get into all of the details, but it suffices to say that the correlation coefficient is a measure of how related X and Y are to each other.  It can be anywhere between -1 (a perfect negative correlation) and +1 (a perfect positive correlation).  A value r = 0 would indicate that there is no relation between the variables at all.

Now, we can't calculate r as above because that's applicable to two random variables, not to two sets of sample data.  However, if you go through the process of calculating the correlation coefficient for two sets of sample data (the formula is much like the one above), then you would get that r = 0.48: not a perfect correlation by any means, but certainly greater than 0, which is what one would expect the correlation coefficient to be close to were there no correlation between the variables at all.  Uncorrelated random variables very rarely yield sets of sample data with a sample correlation coefficient greater than 0.2 or less than -0.2.

Another method would be the process of hypothesis testing, but unfortunately, I really should be heading to bed, so I'll have to do this section at a later date.  It's safe to say, however, that those data are indeed, in fact, somewhat correlated.  It's not a perfect correlation by any means because there obviously would be other factors contributing to homicide rates (I should also note that homicide rates are also not all the crime that might occur due to poverty), but a correlation is actually there, even if it looks like one big mess.

I suppose you're assuming a lot of data points. If you have 2, you will always have a correlation of 1 or -1. If you have enough data points, then much smaller correlations will be statistically significant. Yes, J.J., a correlation of 94% can be statistically significant with enough data points.

[David S]

The reason I question the assertion that poverty correlates with crime  is that when I plot poverty rates for states vs homicides rates I don't see a correlation. You can check the following data for yourself. When there is a correlation the data points should more or less follow a straight line or at least a curved line. But when I plot this data I get something that looks like a shotgun blast, points all over the place. Now it would probably be more accurate to look at city level or county level data. That takes much more time than even a retired geezer would care to spend. But at least at the state level I just don't see a correlation. Let me know if you disagree.

[data]

Points in statistical analysis very, very rarely follow anything that actually looks like a straight line.  You need a correlation coefficient (more on these in a bit) very close to either +1 or -1 for that to happen.  More often than not, it does look like a "shotgun blast", as you put it.  It often is not immediately obvious whether or not a correlation exists.  However, there are methods of analysis that attempt to find a method in the madness.

The first is the method of correlation coefficients, which I mentioned above.  A correlation coefficient, as I said above, is essentially a measure of how correlated two variables are.  Given random variables X and Y, the correlation coefficient r is given by



where E(X) is the expected value of random variable X, μ_X is the mean value of random variable X and σ_X is the standard deviation of random variable X (essentially, how far away from the mean most values of the random variable are).  It would take a while to get into all of the details, but it suffices to say that the correlation coefficient is a measure of how related X and Y are to each other.  It can be anywhere between -1 (a perfect negative correlation) and +1 (a perfect positive correlation).  A value r = 0 would indicate that there is no relation between the variables at all.

Now, we can't calculate r as above because that's applicable to two random variables, not to two sets of sample data.  However, if you go through the process of calculating the correlation coefficient for two sets of sample data (the formula is much like the one above), then you would get that r = 0.48: not a perfect correlation by any means, but certainly greater than 0, which is what one would expect the correlation coefficient to be close to were there no correlation between the variables at all.  Uncorrelated random variables very rarely yield sets of sample data with a sample correlation coefficient greater than 0.2 or less than -0.2.

Another method would be the process of hypothesis testing, but unfortunately, I really should be heading to bed, so I'll have to do this section at a later date.  It's safe to say, however, that those data are indeed, in fact, somewhat correlated.  It's not a perfect correlation by any means because there obviously would be other factors contributing to homicide rates (I should also note that homicide rates are also not all the crime that might occur due to poverty), but a correlation is actually there, even if it looks like one big mess.

Gabu
I was hoping someone more talented at statistics than I am would step forward and do the analysis. Is the .48 number based on the data I posted? Can you use hypothesis testing to determine the probability that there is in fact a correlation? 

With regards to using homicide rates as a measure of crime, I feel that in high crime areas crime is under-reported because the residents have learned that reporting a crime does no good. Murders are a different story, because its hard to ignore a corpse. So in my opinion homicide is a more accurate indicator. Also it is probably the most feared crime.

[DanielX]

The reason I question the assertion that poverty correlates with crime  is that when I plot poverty rates for states vs homicides rates I don't see a correlation. You can check the following data for yourself. When there is a correlation the data points should more or less follow a straight line or at least a curved line. But when I plot this data I get something that looks like a shotgun blast, points all over the place. Now it would probably be more accurate to look at city level or county level data. That takes much more time than even a retired geezer would care to spend. But at least at the state level I just don't see a correlation. Let me know if you disagree.

Maybe you should look at urban vs. rural poverty. I think the correlation is much stronger between urban poverty and violent crime than rural poverty and violent crime. That explains the relatively low homicide rate relative to poverty in states like Arkansas and the Dakotas.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The reason I question the assertion that poverty correlates with crime  is that when I plot poverty rates for states vs homicides rates I don't see a correlation. You can check the following data for yourself. When there is a correlation the data points should more or less follow a straight line or at least a curved line. But when I plot this data I get something that looks like a shotgun blast, points all over the place. Now it would probably be more accurate to look at city level or county level data. That takes much more time than even a retired geezer would care to spend. But at least at the state level I just don't see a correlation. Let me know if you disagree.

[data]

Points in statistical analysis very, very rarely follow anything that actually looks like a straight line.  You need a correlation coefficient (more on these in a bit) very close to either +1 or -1 for that to happen.  More often than not, it does look like a "shotgun blast", as you put it.  It often is not immediately obvious whether or not a correlation exists.  However, there are methods of analysis that attempt to find a method in the madness.

The first is the method of correlation coefficients, which I mentioned above.  A correlation coefficient, as I said above, is essentially a measure of how correlated two variables are.  Given random variables X and Y, the correlation coefficient r is given by



where E(X) is the expected value of random variable X, μ_X is the mean value of random variable X and σ_X is the standard deviation of random variable X (essentially, how far away from the mean most values of the random variable are).  It would take a while to get into all of the details, but it suffices to say that the correlation coefficient is a measure of how related X and Y are to each other.  It can be anywhere between -1 (a perfect negative correlation) and +1 (a perfect positive correlation).  A value r = 0 would indicate that there is no relation between the variables at all.

Now, we can't calculate r as above because that's applicable to two random variables, not to two sets of sample data.  However, if you go through the process of calculating the correlation coefficient for two sets of sample data (the formula is much like the one above), then you would get that r = 0.48: not a perfect correlation by any means, but certainly greater than 0, which is what one would expect the correlation coefficient to be close to were there no correlation between the variables at all.  Uncorrelated random variables very rarely yield sets of sample data with a sample correlation coefficient greater than 0.2 or less than -0.2.

Another method would be the process of hypothesis testing, but unfortunately, I really should be heading to bed, so I'll have to do this section at a later date.  It's safe to say, however, that those data are indeed, in fact, somewhat correlated.  It's not a perfect correlation by any means because there obviously would be other factors contributing to homicide rates (I should also note that homicide rates are also not all the crime that might occur due to poverty), but a correlation is actually there, even if it looks like one big mess.

Gabu
I was hoping someone more talented at statistics than I am would step forward and do the analysis. Is the .48 number based on the data I posted? Can you use hypothesis testing to determine the probability that there is in fact a correlation? 

With regards to using homicide rates as a measure of crime, I feel that in high crime areas crime is under-reported because the residents have learned that reporting a crime does no good. Murders are a different story, because its hard to ignore a corpse. So in my opinion homicide is a more accurate indicator. Also it is probably the most feared crime.

An r correlation  of 0.48 would be statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, provided that you have 18 or more data points. However J.J. would disagree.

With 50 data points, it's even statistically significant at the 99% confidence level.

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/corrchrt.htm

[David S]

Actually, the most interesting numbers that I find are in Texas, among cities with 500,000+.

I note that the only cities in Texas with a significant urban black population are Dallas and Houston and those are the ones at the higher end of the crime range.

However, cities like El Paso and San Antonio, with significant urban Hispanic population, but few blacks, are among the safest big cities in the county.

Moral of the story:  As I have said countless times before, Hispanics in Texas are law and order types and socially conservative.  And this applies to an extent to most other areas in the Southwest and even California (notice LA is not on the list either).

Those who are political watchers should keep in mind what I am saying for the future prospects of both political parties who wish to attract the growing Hispanic population.

Some time ago I was able to find comparable data for homicide rates and % of hispanics in the population for cities over 100,000 people. That makes it fairly easy to cross plot the data and get a graph of homicide rates vs % of hispanics. The data strongly suggests that the murder rate goes down as the percentage of hispanics goes up. I was pleasantly surprised by that result. For non-hispanic whites the trend is the same, but for blacks the murder rate goes up as the percentage of blacks in the population goes up. I don't know how to show the graphs in this forum but I can e-mail the spreadsheets with the graphs if anyone is interested. Its in the Works spreadsheet format.

[Sam Spade]

Actually, the most interesting numbers that I find are in Texas, among cities with 500,000+.

I note that the only cities in Texas with a significant urban black population are Dallas and Houston and those are the ones at the higher end of the crime range.

However, cities like El Paso and San Antonio, with significant urban Hispanic population, but few blacks, are among the safest big cities in the county.

Moral of the story:  As I have said countless times before, Hispanics in Texas are law and order types and socially conservative.  And this applies to an extent to most other areas in the Southwest and even California (notice LA is not on the list either).

Those who are political watchers should keep in mind what I am saying for the future prospects of both political parties who wish to attract the growing Hispanic population.

Some time ago I was able to find comparable data for homicide rates and % of hispanics in the population for cities over 100,000 people. That makes it fairly easy to cross plot the data and get a graph of homicide rates vs % of hispanics. The data strongly suggests that the murder rate goes down as the percentage of hispanics goes up. I was pleasantly surprised by that result. For non-hispanic whites the trend is the same, but for blacks the murder rate goes up as the percentage of blacks in the population goes up. I don't know how to show the graphs in this forum but I can e-mail the spreadsheets with the graphs if anyone is interested. Its in the Works spreadsheet format.

Sounds extremely interesting.

[12th Doctor]

The safest cities are all the most well-off cities. I know that Newton, MA is filled with the upper-middle class and also a good chunk of the wealthy. Starting price for a house there is at least $500,000.

Cities like Camden, NJ and Flint, MI are incredibly poor. The link between crime and economics can't be denied and every study shows this.

So, by that rationale, the highest crime areas should also be in the rural mountains.

[Dan]

I'm seeing a pattern here, anyone else?
Most dangerous cities;

Camden, NJ is number 1, 53.7% black
Detroit is number 2, 81.6% black.
Atlanta is number 3, 61.4% black.
St. Louis is number 4, 51.2% black.
Gary, Indiana is number 5, 84% black.
Washington DC is number 6, 60% black.
Hartford is number 7, 38% black (majority of the population).
etc. etc. (Source: Morgan Quinto)

The least dangerous city is Newton, MA - 88.1% white
Followed by Brick Township, NJ - 95.8% white
Then Amherst, NY - 89.3%, etc. etc.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I'm seeing a pattern here, anyone else?
Most dangerous cities;

Camden, NJ is number 1, 53.7% black
Detroit is number 2, 81.6% black.
Atlanta is number 3, 61.4% black.
St. Louis is number 4, 51.2% black.
Gary, Indiana is number 5, 84% black.
Washington DC is number 6, 60% black.
Hartford is number 7, 38% black (majority of the population).
etc. etc. (Source: Morgan Quinto)

The least dangerous city is Newton, MA - 88.1% white
Followed by Brick Township, NJ - 95.8% white
Then Amherst, NY - 89.3%, etc. etc.

Are you suggesting that being black causes crime?

[Speed of Sound]

I'm seeing a pattern here, anyone else?
Most dangerous cities;

Camden, NJ is number 1, 53.7% black
Detroit is number 2, 81.6% black.
Atlanta is number 3, 61.4% black.
St. Louis is number 4, 51.2% black.
Gary, Indiana is number 5, 84% black.
Washington DC is number 6, 60% black.
Hartford is number 7, 38% black (majority of the population).
etc. etc. (Source: Morgan Quinto)

The least dangerous city is Newton, MA - 88.1% white
Followed by Brick Township, NJ - 95.8% white
Then Amherst, NY - 89.3%, etc. etc.

Are you suggesting that being black causes crime?

that is exaclty what the retard is suggesting, yes.

[David S]

I'm seeing a pattern here, anyone else?
Most dangerous cities;

Camden, NJ is number 1, 53.7% black
Detroit is number 2, 81.6% black.
Atlanta is number 3, 61.4% black.
St. Louis is number 4, 51.2% black.
Gary, Indiana is number 5, 84% black.
Washington DC is number 6, 60% black.
Hartford is number 7, 38% black (majority of the population).
etc. etc. (Source: Morgan Quinto)

The least dangerous city is Newton, MA - 88.1% white
Followed by Brick Township, NJ - 95.8% white
Then Amherst, NY - 89.3%, etc. etc.

Are you suggesting that being black causes crime?

that is exaclty what the retard is suggesting, yes.

Nobody wants to be racist but there is a very strong relationship between the percentage of blacks in a community and the amount of crime. If we can't accept the facts then we have little chance of finding solutions.

[Speed of Sound]

I'm seeing a pattern here, anyone else?
Most dangerous cities;

Camden, NJ is number 1, 53.7% black
Detroit is number 2, 81.6% black.
Atlanta is number 3, 61.4% black.
St. Louis is number 4, 51.2% black.
Gary, Indiana is number 5, 84% black.
Washington DC is number 6, 60% black.
Hartford is number 7, 38% black (majority of the population).
etc. etc. (Source: Morgan Quinto)

The least dangerous city is Newton, MA - 88.1% white
Followed by Brick Township, NJ - 95.8% white
Then Amherst, NY - 89.3%, etc. etc.

Are you suggesting that being black causes crime?

that is exaclty what the retard is suggesting, yes.

Nobody wants to be racist but there is a very strong relationship between the percentage of blacks in a community and the amount of crime. If we can't accept the facts then we have little chance of finding solutions.

But 'blacks make cities worse crime wise' is not a fact. at all.

[afleitch]

That is true, but there is a correlation and one that cannot be ignored when proposing solutions to crime.

[David S]

I'm seeing a pattern here, anyone else?
Most dangerous cities;

Camden, NJ is number 1, 53.7% black
Detroit is number 2, 81.6% black.
Atlanta is number 3, 61.4% black.
St. Louis is number 4, 51.2% black.
Gary, Indiana is number 5, 84% black.
Washington DC is number 6, 60% black.
Hartford is number 7, 38% black (majority of the population).
etc. etc. (Source: Morgan Quinto)

The least dangerous city is Newton, MA - 88.1% white
Followed by Brick Township, NJ - 95.8% white
Then Amherst, NY - 89.3%, etc. etc.

Are you suggesting that being black causes crime?

that is exaclty what the retard is suggesting, yes.

Nobody wants to be racist but there is a very strong relationship between the percentage of blacks in a community and the amount of crime. If we can't accept the facts then we have little chance of finding solutions.

But 'blacks make cities worse crime wise' is not a fact. at all.

What is a fact is that the higher the percentage of blacks in a community, the higher the murder rate. Now you can say that a correlation does not prove "cause and effect". That is true, but the correlation is I think undeniable.

[Jake]

Cities like Camden, NJ and Flint, MI are incredibly poor. The link between crime and economics can't be denied and every study shows this.

And incredibly black. Just like Detroit and a host of the others.

[Moooooo]

Cities like Camden, NJ and Flint, MI are incredibly poor. The link between crime and economics can't be denied and every study shows this.

And incredibly black. Just like Detroit and a host of the others.

Very true.  That statement may not be politically correct, but its true none the less.

[dazzleman]

But 'blacks make cities worse crime wise' is not a fact. at all.

Unfortunately, it is.  We won't solve the problem by sticking our heads in the sand and mouthing politically correct platitudes.

[Alcon]

But 'blacks make cities worse crime wise' is not a fact. at all.

Unfortunately, it is.  We won't solve the problem by sticking our heads in the sand and mouthing politically correct platitudes.

Then again, neither will assuming that blacks are inherently violent, which is what Dan is doing.

[dazzleman]

But 'blacks make cities worse crime wise' is not a fact. at all.

Unfortunately, it is.  We won't solve the problem by sticking our heads in the sand and mouthing politically correct platitudes.

Then again, neither will assuming that blacks are inherently violent, which is what Dan is doing.

No, I agree that blacks are not inherently violent.  What I'm saying is that we need an open discussion as to the causes and possible remedies for the obvious situation that the crime rate among blacks far exceeds that of other demographic groups.  To say the problem doesn't exist is political correctness of the worst kind.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh dear... the old blacks-and-crime thing again

First thing to remember: the crime rate among blacks is rather high.

Second thing to remember: there is no link between having a certain skin colour and being violent and/or a criminal. If you *actually* think that, then you are a racist.

The debate usually ends at the second point...

Third thing to remember: inner city areas across America have an awful lot of social problems caused by just about anything imaginable (let's not play politics here, there's no need to) and one of the largest is the collapse of the family structure in these areas mainly due to (and isn't this always the way?) a few oversight's on a particular social programme. This collapse has hit blacks (the overwhelming majority in most of these areas) extremely hard and has, especially as it's been combined with more typical inner city problems, resulted in the creation of an underclass (nothing unusual so far; due to the other social problems this is common pretty much everywhere but...) one that is unusally rootless, sadistic, rapacious and parasitic.

[dazzleman]

Oh dear... the old blacks-and-crime thing again

First thing to remember: the crime rate among blacks is rather high.

Second thing to remember: there is no link between having a certain skin colour and being violent and/or a criminal. If you *actually* think that, then you are a racist.

The debate usually ends at the second point...

Third thing to remember: inner city areas across America have an awful lot of social problems caused by just about anything imaginable (let's not play politics here, there's no need to) and one of the largest is the collapse of the family structure in these areas mainly due to (and isn't this always the way?) a few oversight's on a particular social programme. This collapse has hit blacks (the overwhelming majority in most of these areas) extremely hard and has, especially as it's been combined with more typical inner city problems, resulted in the creation of an underclass (nothing unusual so far; due to the other social problems this is common pretty much everywhere but...) one that is unusally rootless, sadistic, rapacious and parasitic.

I completely agree.

[Governor PiT]

I'm seeing a pattern here, anyone else?
Most dangerous cities;

Camden, NJ is number 1, 53.7% black
Detroit is number 2, 81.6% black.
Atlanta is number 3, 61.4% black.
St. Louis is number 4, 51.2% black.
Gary, Indiana is number 5, 84% black.
Washington DC is number 6, 60% black.
Hartford is number 7, 38% black (majority of the population).
etc. etc. (Source: Morgan Quinto)

The least dangerous city is Newton, MA - 88.1% white
Followed by Brick Township, NJ - 95.8% white
Then Amherst, NY - 89.3%, etc. etc.

The the individual forum there is a question about Camden NJ.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'd say Camden is about 20% black, 20% hispanic, and 60% abandoned, fire damaged, and boarded up.