How much is due to changes in or the unreliability of the statistics? The article (and many others) say perceptions haven't caught up with reality, but really they mean that perception hasn't caught up with statistics -- perhaps the statistics don't reflect reality. I don't know one way or the other, but I haven't seen these questions addressed:
1) I don't know much about how the data is produced, but certainly if law enforcement practitioners, down to the sergeants, are under pressure to produce better and better statistics (which many reports say is true), they are incentivized to reduce those stats and not crime.
I've read news stories of police not reporting or fudging crime stats (e.g., reporting a serious crime as a moderate one, not reporting lower-level crimes, etc.). And under that pressure, they may use strategies that produce more numerical improvement than public safety.
2) How could the FBI accurately measure nation-wide crime, every mugging in every small town? Do others measure it?
3) Some of the numbers are extraordinary; doesn't that raise red flags for you?: (both quotes are from the article)
* "the F.B.I.'s count of violent crimes reported to law enforcement has declined from a rate of 747 violent incidents per 100,000 people in 1993 to 387 ... over this period, the homicide rate has fallen by 51 percent; forcible rapes have declined by 35 percent; robberies have decreased by 56 percent; and the rate of aggravated assault has been cut by 45 percent. Property crime rates are also sharply down."
* "The National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the rate of violent victimizations has declined by 67 percent since 1993. This reflects a 70 percent decline in rape and sexual assault; a 66 percent decline in robbery; a 77 percent decline in aggravated assault; and a 64 percent decline in simple assault."
1) I don't know much about how the data is produced, but certainly if law enforcement practitioners, down to the sergeants, are under pressure to produce better and better statistics (which many reports say is true), they are incentivized to reduce those stats and not crime.
I've read news stories of police not reporting or fudging crime stats (e.g., reporting a serious crime as a moderate one, not reporting lower-level crimes, etc.). And under that pressure, they may use strategies that produce more numerical improvement than public safety.
2) How could the FBI accurately measure nation-wide crime, every mugging in every small town? Do others measure it?
3) Some of the numbers are extraordinary; doesn't that raise red flags for you?: (both quotes are from the article)
* "the F.B.I.'s count of violent crimes reported to law enforcement has declined from a rate of 747 violent incidents per 100,000 people in 1993 to 387 ... over this period, the homicide rate has fallen by 51 percent; forcible rapes have declined by 35 percent; robberies have decreased by 56 percent; and the rate of aggravated assault has been cut by 45 percent. Property crime rates are also sharply down."
* "The National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the rate of violent victimizations has declined by 67 percent since 1993. This reflects a 70 percent decline in rape and sexual assault; a 66 percent decline in robbery; a 77 percent decline in aggravated assault; and a 64 percent decline in simple assault."