Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Report: 2020 Homicide Rate So High There is ‘No Modern Precedent’

Report: 2020 Homicide Rate So High There is ‘No Modern Precedent’

Gee, I guess keeping people locked up, especially at-risk individuals, is not a good idea.

The National Commission of COVID-19 and Criminal Justice (NCCCJ) study on crime in 2020 revealed homicide rates increased by 30%.

A large rise occurred in June after the death of George Floyd.

The Council on Criminal Justice launched the NCCCJ to investigate crime statistics and the justice system during the COVID-19 pandemic. A lot of states and cities spent the year shut down, leaving many to worry about crime and mental health.

The NCCJ focused on 10 offenses:

  • Homicide
  • Aggravated Assault
  • Gun Assault
  • Domestic Violence
  • Robbery
  • Residential Burglary
  • Nonresidential Burglary
  • Larceny
  • Motor Vehicle Theft
  • Drug Offenses

The homicide data showed the “rates were 30% higher than in 2019, an [sic] historic increase representing 1,268 more deaths in the sample of 34 cities than the year before.”

However, the absolute rates of homicides remain low: “In 2020, the homicide rate was 11.4 deaths per 100,000 residents in sample cities; 25 years earlier, in 1995, the rate was 19.4 per 100,000 residents.”

The study looked at 34 cities, which the authors did not draw at random. The largest city is New York with 8.42 million residents and Norfolk, VA, with the smallest at 245,000 residents.

The authors noticed an increase once the pandemic started, but homicides spiked after Floyd’s death:

That said, homicides rates in 2020 exceeded previous rates throughout the entire year and there was a structural break in the city average in June, indicating a large, statistically significant increase in rates after adjusting for seasonality and the longer-term trend. After this break, homicide rates increased sharply through July, then declined through the end of the year, though not to levels observed in the prior year.

The pandemic began in March, but the report disclosed that “the average city homicide rate increased by 32.5% over the same period in 2019” in January and February.

More from the report:

From March through May, the rate was 19.4% higher. For the summer months of June through August, the homicide rate was 37.2% higher. For September through December, the rate was 28.2% higher.

From the declaration of emergencies in March through the end of the year, the average city homicide rate increased by 28.6% over the same period in 2019. Across the entire year of 2020, the homicide rate was 29.6% higher in 2020 than the year before. That translates to an additional 1,268 homicides across the 34-city sample.

https://cdn.ymaws.com/counciloncj.org/resource/resmgr/covid_commission/Year_End_Crime_Update_Design.pdf

Homicides went up in 29 of the 34 cities:

Several of the greatest increases occurred in smaller cities with very small homicide counts, where even a few additional homicides can produce a large percentage change. For example, Chula Vista, California, experienced the largest homicide increase in the sample (150%), but that percentage is based on a difference of just six homicides (ten in 2020 compared with four in 2019). But large increases in homicides were not limited to smaller cities. Chicago added 278 homicides to its 2019 total of 502, for an increase of 55%. New York added 131 homicides, representing a 43% increase. Not surprisingly, given their size, large cities with appreciable homicide increases contributed disproportionately to the overall increase in murder victims. The three largest cities (New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago) accounted for fully 40% of the 1,268 additional people killed in 2020. While there is variation among the cities, what is most notable is that homicide rose substantially in the vast majority of them.

The report noted that the lockdowns “may have had an initial suppressive effect on homicides” since fewer happened in March through May. But the lockdowns also messed with mental health and cut off any outreach to at-risk individuals. That is why they concluded the numbers went up drastically as states and cities loosened restrictions.

The authors recommended that “subduing” COVID-19 is the best way to bring down the homicide rates. The lockdowns put strains on people while disrupting “outreach to at-risk individuals.” Zoom meetings cannot replace face-to-face meetings with police and therapists.

It does not take a rocket scientist or someone with a medical degree to know that locking humans inside for a long period of time is not healthy.

Humans need interaction. It’s cool we can meet with our psychiatrists and other doctors via Zoom. But it cannot replace the face-to-face interaction humans inherently need.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Bucky Barkingham | February 2, 2021 at 7:16 am

This statistic will be used to justify draconian gun control legislation, and many Roll Over Republicans will jump on the band wagon.

Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

    Fortunately the Report recommends no such thing. I’ve just scanned the recommendations and they include things like improving technology within the justice system, improved alternatives for mental health and drug issues (as opposed to prison), better preparedness for pandemics.

      The recommendations are irrelevant. The media-crats will spin it whatever way they want.

      Idonttweet in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 9:13 am

      He said only that the report would be used to justify so-called gun control measures, and we know it will.

      The Council on Criminal Justice appears to be a self-appointed, left-leaning organization, focusing on persistent “racial and economic disparities” as root causes of crime. They count Kim Foxx, Angela Davis, and even Trey Gowdy among their members, along with Roy Austin, VP of Civil Rights at Facebook, on their Board of Directors, and Jerry Brown is a trustee.

      They devised this National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice to “assess the impact of COVID-19 on the justice system, develop strategies to limit outbreaks, and produce a priority agenda of systemic policy changes to better balance public health and public safety.” Alberto Gonzales and Loretta Lynch are the co-chairs. (counciloncj.org)

      Don’t hold your breath if you’re expecting anything but a left-leaning perspective in their conclusions.

        mark311 in reply to Idonttweet. | February 2, 2021 at 9:27 am

        You don’t need to hold your breathe at all, you can read them and come to your own conclusion.

        On scanning through briefly it seems sensible stuff. I havent however read the detail.

        If you consider treating mental illness with in a mental health setting as opposed to a prison setting a left wing position then yes it is and entirely sensible.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 9:44 am

          Actually, the left believes in throwing people with mental health problems to of institutions and onto the street with little to no supervision which necessarily leads to increased police involvement. But this deinstitutionalization of mental health services has been a multi-decades practice and so has very little if anything to do with the current spike in crime.

          The left also believe in taking completely sane people who they disagree with, dislike, or what to steal from, and threated to place them into mental institutions which includes mass re-education centers. They have a long history of such activity.

          The chart correlates the spike of violence with COVID lockdowns. Yet, this violence is not replicated in other countries with similar to more severe lockdowns. I suggest another correlation that needs to be considered in that of the US elections and regime change.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 11:13 am

          @ Brave Sir Robbin

          Actually, the left believes in throwing people with mental health problems to of institutions and onto the street with little to no supervision which necessarily leads to increased police involvement. But this deinstitutionalization of mental health services has been a multi-decades practice and so has very little if anything to do with the current spike in crime.

          Well the left isnt a homogenous group, in terms of my own policy preferences as a moderate leftie (on some issues at least) would be far greater proactive health professional support within the community and out reach. There should also be adequate facilities to address those with greater needs to ensure that the have access to proper medical and support facilities as appropriate. Ive not read the report in detail on what exactly is proposed in the document referred to in the article. Suffice to say im a fan of universal health care based on taxation of all; yes im a fan of the NHS if you want a model to follow. I cant speak for others on the left and there policy preferences for this issue.

          The second part of your point is whether there is a link with mental health and crime. Well ive no idea is the honest answer im not familiar at all with the evidence available on this subject.

          The left also believe in taking completely sane people who they disagree with, dislike, or what to steal from, and threated to place them into mental institutions which includes mass re-education centers. They have a long history of such activity.

          I agree with the sentiment of what you say, discourse has been thoroughly undermined by cancel culture, historical revisionism, an inability to distinguish between acceptable offence in the course of discussion and genuine hate speech, and some members of the left being absolute twats. Its not entirely relevant but the link below is of a particular favourite comedian of mine which succinctly gives at least part of my world view. Its a bit old now but still very true.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

          The chart correlates the spike of violence with COVID lockdowns. Yet, this violence is not replicated in other countries with similar to more severe lockdowns. I suggest another correlation that needs to be considered in that of the US elections and regime change.

          Maybe I’ve no idea, i think youd have to drill down into the details of the dataset.

      John Devereaux in reply to mark311. | February 3, 2021 at 9:00 am

      The report does cover and blame guns. Search for the word ‘firearm’. Also in their ‘Recommendations’ it comes off as reducing enforcement of laws in minority communities will be the answer that reduces the crime rate. And by crime rate, we can only extrapolate that means murders (since that what the entire report is based on). Yeah, let them get away with murder to reduce murder,,, LOL!

        Yeah, let them get away with murder to reduce murder,,, LOL!

        If you don’t count the crimes the crime counts go down. And you didn’t have to do a thing, perfect for a government employee! I recall NYC getting caught doing that (not counting, then tooting their horn that crime is down).

        Enforcing behavioral norms is white supremacy, don’t you know. It’s racist to notice these things. This is the same reasoning being used by UK judges to let Muslims off with light sentences after rape convictions. “It’s their culture”.

Interesting read, the UK has seen large falls in crime although there hasn’t been much public attention on violent crime generally so I don’t know the comparison. Domestic violence has increased (unsurprisingly).

Does the report detail the nature of the increase in homicide rates (ie does it relate to domestic abuse, gang violence or another factor?)

The “little” people are the victims. The elites are safe behind walls and armed security. So, what’s the problem?

The “solution” will be to disarm the little people. The higher crime rate is a feature, an intended consequence. The enemy is not ignorant. We are.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to TX-rifraph. | February 2, 2021 at 9:36 am

    In addition, the peasants are revolting, in every way.

    They stubbornly cling to their bibles and guns. Why can’t they just let go and submit? Anyway, we’ve asked nicely, and shall not ask nicely again.

More proof that the Government is not going to keep you safe.

Not to mention the hate that is spewed on the network news against Conservatives, whites, Maga hats ect……People feel emboldened to attack “the Nazi’s” the left is calling us….And NOTHING is being done to stop them.

How much more of this defunding and demonizing of the police, declaring everything to be based on racism, and then stirring the pot to get minorities angry about racism that largely does not exist (e.g., systemic racism, demanding equity instead of equality, microaggressions, etc.), before the Left begins to understand the damage they are causing this country?

Democrats are reaping the whirlwind.

Waiting for the “rise in crime due to growing activity of white supremacists” spin from the Joseph Goebbels media.

Gee, I guess keeping people locked up, especially at-risk individuals, is not a good idea.
Actually, part of the problem was the ones they DIDN’T keep locked up.

    Voyager in reply to GWB. | February 2, 2021 at 9:33 am

    Yeah, I was going to say, didn’t a number of States empty their prisons during the pandemic?

    I’m wondering if there is a comparison between the states that let all the violent felons go on vs the ones that did not?

      DaveGinOly in reply to Voyager. | February 2, 2021 at 12:16 pm

      I wonder how the violence (esp. homicide) breaks out racially and geographically. If this information would show what I suspect, the increase in violence has little or nothing to do with COVID response. Are we actually seeing a rise in the usual black-on-black violence in cities where they have reduced funds to police and/or demonstrated an unwillingness to enforce the law by allowing non-stop rioting? COVID response merely correlates with the increase in crime, it is likely to not be the major factor.

      We can see from much of the discussion above (and the panel’s purpose and findings) concerning the mental health impacts of COVID response, this is misdirection meant to prevent an examination of how the policies of certain cities with respect to policing, not COVID response, resulted in a predictable increase in violent crime. Changes in policing policies and police funding were made in response to the rioting, which had nothing to do with COVID or COVID response. But COVID response is being used as cover for misguided policies concerning policing in cities almost all run by liberal Democrats.

The pandemic began in March, but the report disclosed that “the average city homicide rate increased by 32.5% over the same period in 2019” in January and February.
That’s not what the chart shows.

    GWB in reply to GWB. | February 2, 2021 at 9:13 am

    Disregard. I’m looking at the drop from the end of 2019. Which was much higher than the beginning of 2019. (Did these same folks look at why the increase in 2019? I seem to recall a bunch of stupid DA tricks that got started in 2019….)

Leftists: See! All these new guns being bought are driving up the crime rate! They need to be banned.
Sane people: Um, you’re mistaking Cause and Effect.
Leftists: And anybody who thinks otherwise is a terrorist who should be in jail and their life destroyed.
Sane people: Um… Please don’t hurt me.

    mark311 in reply to georgfelis. | February 2, 2021 at 12:08 pm

    Well most research does show that guns increase violent crimes. Odd that.

      DaveGinOly in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 12:29 pm

      Zero research shows that there’s a cause and effect relationship showing “more guns equals more crime.” Correlation does not equal causation. “More guns” does not even always correlate with “more crime.”

      This country’s homicide rate had been decreasing for decades following the homicide spike of the 1980s, decades during which tens of millions of guns were purchased by citizens (an increase in the number of privately-owned guns). This does not prove that “more guns equals less crime,” but it does disprove that “more guns equals more crime.” In formal terms, the proposition that “more guns equals more crime” has been falsified.

        mark311 in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 2, 2021 at 2:55 pm

        Not so

        https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jels.12219

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0373-z

        Indeed there is a clear logic to why a high ownership of guns would increase homicide and other violent crimes. It makes it much easier. Defending yourself with a gun is frankly a myth. The reality is the aggressor will shoot you first in many instances.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 4:00 pm

          We could certainly get into a tit-for-tat dueling academic citation war. One of the articles you cite basically says gun owners are irrational and does not add evidence to your central proposition.

          When all is said and done, the data indicates that as gun ownership has increased in the United States, overall crime rates, to include violent crime rates, have decreased. This is pretty irrefutable.

          What is arguable is if increasing gun ownership is the cause of this reduction in violent crime. A strong argument can be made this is actually more related to demographic trends and incarceration rates in the US. Certain demographics have higher violent crime rates to include the use of firearms in the commission of that violence. A reduction in the at-large population decreases violent crime – and an increase causes an increase. There is argument about the demographic factors that are most relevant.

          It’s also inarguable that localities with stricter gun control laws tend to have higher rates of gun violence. The question is whether there is a cause and effect correlation, or simple correlation, but the correlation is rather irrefutable.

          Lastly, in the United States, the people are supposed to be the sovereign. Therefore, the people, individually and as a collective, should have greater rights and powers than the government they form and empower to conduct their collective business. It is necessary, therefore, they be armed to be able to assert that sovereign authority. A law abiding, peaceful citizen with a gun is a threat only to criminals and dictators.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 7:34 pm

          For clarity my central proposition is that overly lax gun laws contribute directly to crime levels and deaths generally. The article goes into detail that one of the drivers for gun ownership is based out of fear or a desire to protect oneself even though this is unlikely to be the case and given the number of suicides committed using guns is dangerous. This contributes to my point in that it is an irrational driver for increased number of guns which in turn increases the number of deaths.

          “When all is said and done, the data indicates that as gun ownership has increased in the United States, overall crime rates, to include violent crime rates, have decreased. This is pretty irrefutable.”

          Is it the sources ive looked at demonstrably show the opposite
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

          Demographics of course plays a role but a gun is an enabler, lax gun laws means that practically anyone can get a gun no matter how dangerous that individual.

          “It’s also inarguable that localities with stricter gun control laws tend to have higher rates of gun violence. The question is whether there is a cause and effect correlation, or simple correlation, but the correlation is rather irrefutable.”

          I think this para is a little confused are you arguing that stricter gun laws causes more gun violence? Id like to see a source that supports that claim.

          “Lastly, in the United States, the people are supposed to be the sovereign. Therefore, the people, individually and as a collective, should have greater rights and powers than the government they form and empower to conduct their collective business. It is necessary, therefore, they be armed to be able to assert that sovereign authority. A law abiding, peaceful citizen with a gun is a threat only to criminals and dictators.”

          People are supposed to have rights sure, but where do those rights sit alongside other rights. It seems capricious that guns are toted as a right as some kind of defence when the reality is they are no such thing they provide no defence against the state and end up causing death and damage to others. Gun rights without restraint is clearly going to allow arms into the wrong hands so it is necessary to limit that, that line is open to debate but as a right it is lower than the right to life.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 10:18 pm

          “It seems capricious that guns are toted as a right as some kind of defence when the reality is they are no such thing they provide no defence against the state and end up causing death and damage to others.”

          In the United States, slaves were prohibited from owning firearms. I wonder why.

          In the United States, the people are sovereign. The only people who need fear a peaceful law abiding citizen are criminals and dictators. If the peaceful law abiding citizenry is not armed, the only persons who will be armed will be criminals and dictators. It’s very elementary.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 10:33 pm

          ” Gun rights without restraint is clearly going to allow arms into the wrong hands so it is necessary to limit that, that line is open to debate but as a right it is lower than the right to life.”

          I guess you do not understand the phrase that the only persons who need to fear armed law abiding citizens are criminals and dictators. If law abiding citizens give up their rights to arms, then only criminals and dictators will have them.

          Your argument can be used to quash any and all of anyone’s natural rights. You do not restrict a right, such as free speech, on the speculation that someone may say something that causes harm to another. Instead, you act upon what a person did with that freedom, hence laws for libel, slander, incitement and such. The same is true for being armed.

          If you have freedoms, it is because people with arms are willing to protect it from those who would take it away. If you do not trust the people with armed sovereignty, then the people can only be governed via oppression in any event.

          If you do not care to be armed. That is your choice. If you do not wish to express an opinion, that is also your choice. But you have no right to impose your choices on others.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 10:43 pm

          “I think this para is a little confused are you arguing that stricter gun laws causes more gun violence? Id like to see a source that supports that claim.”

          There are numerous peer reviewed publications that support that claim. In fact, gun control laws simply restrict the law abiding from possessing firearms, giving criminals little fear of preying upon the law abiding. If you are a criminal and you know home “A” is occupied by an armed resident, and home “B” is occupied by you, which home is going to be broken into?

          However, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Gun control laws may be greater in more violent locals because they are more violent and the local population is attempting to combat that violence. Or it may be more violent because the criminals do not fear an armed law abiding populace which is restricted from defensing itself. Or there may be some sort of spiraling feedback mechanism. Or there may be some other cause altogether, and the correlation is purely random. Nonetheless, the correlation irrefutably exists.

      henrybowman in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 1:35 pm

      If I had any remaining doubts about how hard you suck at the narrative teat of the Marxists, they were shattered by the repetition of that Big Lie.

      Obama commissioned NIH/CDC to study the “gun violence” problem and come up with proof of that. The study results were buried, because it proved the opposite.But they’re available on the webz.

Proving – for anyone who cares to look at the data – that we have an UNDERincarceration problem in this country.

PS – are the Left still blaming Reagan for cutting funding for mental institutions and “creating “The Homeless Crisis”? That argument is getting pretty stale 40 years later.

    DaveGinOly in reply to NYBruin. | February 2, 2021 at 12:33 pm

    If I recall correctly, the Left usually blames Nixon for that. As I understand it, de-institutionalization began during the Kennedy administration, and was only completed under the Nixon administration, so he got the blame.

    Reagan got the blame for the homeless problem (of course related to de-institutionalizing), which instantly went away when Bill Clinton took office after the Bush presidency.

    mark311 in reply to NYBruin. | February 2, 2021 at 3:07 pm

    Underincarceration problem? Jesus you’d lock up every Tom Dick and Harry wouldn’t you.

    Honestly the US system is an expensive, inefficient way of treating people with poor outcomes, high rates of reoffending and ends up with everyone pissed of.

    The prison system in the US is just another business. It makes a number of companies a lot of money for providing the minimum of service. It’s crap.

Plenty of criminals released from prison and jail early this year as well because of this covid thing. Add back in the so called bail reform as well, neither one was mentioned in the report.

Gee, I guess keeping people locked up, especially at-risk individuals, is not a good idea.

On the contrary, this report shows that keeping the right people locked up is a very good idea, and this is what happens when you don’t.

The report tries to spin as much as possible of the rise as a result of the lockdowns and as little as possible as the result of the reduction in policing, and in criminals’ respect for the police, after the country exploded over George Floyd’s death, but its own numbers don’t support that.

See Paul Cassell’s review, which points out that the big rise in homicide happened that week and kept going. The lockdowns had eased more than a month earlier, so that can’t be the cause. It’s when the police stopped actively enforcing the law, and the criminals knew that, that they started behaving as they do in the wild.

    mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | February 2, 2021 at 3:25 pm

    Interesting link thanks Milhouse

    alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | February 2, 2021 at 5:19 pm

    Agreed. While violence is poly-factorial… there were limited changes during this time which makes evaluation easier. Decreased policing and the selective “blind eye” to violence spawned by BLM, etc (Rudy’s “broken window” rule) just ushered in the increase.

Not so much “keeping people locked up” as much as “FUDding police into stasis.”

Heather MacDonald had thus story out in WSJ last week … It looked at over 50 cities and it was a 37% increase 2,000 homicide increase mostly inner city … Black folk and the Wu Flu had nothing to do with it … You disband defund and not support police this is what you get

    alaskabob in reply to Aggie9595. | February 2, 2021 at 5:27 pm

    “Some black people” did have something to do with it. Not all black people are criminals but the majority of violent crime is from a very very small segment of that population. Biden just made it illegal to name Covid after where it came from to prevent some ethereal harm to Chinese Americans while whitewashing the real culprit … CCP. Obscuring the real issues only permits it to continue. The primary victims of this blind indifference are black neighborhoods. It isn’t “white supremacy” but soft bigotry toward minorities.

      Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | February 2, 2021 at 5:31 pm

      Biden just made it illegal to name Covid after where it came from

      No, he didn’t. He can’t. He instructed his employees not to do so while on the job. He can do that, just as he can instruct them to call a spade a “manually operated digging implement”. It doesn’t change what it is.

        alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | February 2, 2021 at 6:04 pm

        Thank you Milhouse for being very specific. It STILL intentionally obscures where it came from and what the goal was by the CCP.

“the reality is they are no such thing they provide no defence against the state and end up causing death and damage to others”

They don’t? There are 350+ million firearms in the United States, in the hands of 85+ *million* Americans. That provides no defense against the state? Because I’m pretty sure it does.

    Evil Otto in reply to Evil Otto. | February 3, 2021 at 5:54 am

    Dang it, that was meant for Mark.

    mark311 in reply to Evil Otto. | February 3, 2021 at 10:42 am

    Nope very little. You put the military against the common citizen and the military would win hands down. The equipment, organisation, air power, intelligence services, and other variables would make a citizen’s response highly unlikely to defend against an activity hostile state. Just fantasy. Clearly my hypothesis is hypothetical but I just don’t see it as a practical reality. For to many assumptions necessary for a workable resistance.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend