Murder Rate in the United States

Written By:

Inem Chahal

Nunley et. al attempt to explain variables which may be responsible for the

inconsistencies in the murder rate from 1934 to 2006 in the United States of America. These

variables include: immigration, crack- cocaine epidemic, inflation, GDP, unemployment and the

age group of twenty to twenty- nine years. They conclude that immigration and crack- cocaine

outbreak may be responsible for only a part of the changes occurring in the murder rate because

these two factors fail to present show patterns over a long period of time. On the other hand, they

assert that inflation, GDP and unemployment as unrelated to the murders. They argue that

variations in the murder rate during this extended time period can be explained by the changes in

the age distribution among the American population.

Many scholars have studied numerous variables that may be held accountable for the

unsystematic changes in the murder rate during the era of interest however, the four most

common rationales will be discussed. First off, nearly all of the academics claim that drug use is

directly relation to crime. Connection with criminality is almost certain as most addicts acquire

their drugs from outside the health industry1. Table one in the appendix shows that the number of

arrests for each individual increases following addiction2. It also shows that men have a higher

chance of becoming offenders after addiction compared to women. In addition, sentences are

usually large for individuals who become addicted at an early age and those who carry criminal

records prior to addiction3. The reason this happens is because as these people become severely

addicted, they are tempted to earn large incomes from criminal activities, which are almost

always linked to serious violence, such as murder4. Secondly, it has been consistently examined

that the age group eighteen to twenty- four years constitutes almost thirty- six percent of all

offenders as evident in table two in the appendix. The diagram shows that almost fifty- percent

of the offenders are below the age of twenty- five years. For offenders, “the rate per 100, 000

peaks in the eighteen to twenty- four year old age group”5. Although this group only makes up a

small percentage if the population, they are responsible for twenty- six percent of the arrests

made for murders6. Thirdly, with drugs most sold on the streets, suppliers regularly carried guns

because of emerging street robbers7 and because “the number of street drug markets exploded in

the 1980s, which contributed to violence”8. The spectacular increase in the murder rate during

the 1980’s could have been the result of juveniles and young adults being in possession of guns,

leading to potential murders. Table three in the appendix shows that handgun was the most

widely used weapon for murder9. Finally, economic conditions were known to have a direct

affect on murder rates. Unemployment is related to robberies, which are highly correlated with

murder10. With job loss on the rise, people do not have sufficient means to make their daily ends

meet, which triggers them to obtain these necessities through illegal activities such as robberies.

Graph four in the appendix supports the likelihood that robberies may be driving up the murder

rate or vice versa. It shows an increase in the robberies in 1960 to 1967, which directly

corresponds to an increase in murder rate in graph five from the appendix.

Nunley et. al contribute to the literature by arguing that the twenty to twenty- nine age

group is one of the most influential factories affecting murder rates11 whereas other researchers

maintain that this age group has little effect on crime rates that occurred during the span of thirty

to fourty years12. However, Nunley et. al claim that even though the relationship may not be

apparent in the short run, it is important to study an extended time period from the 1930s to

present to see its influences. Although they focused mainly on age, they also made additions to

this field by forecasting other variables such as: the arrival of new immigrants and the emergence

of crack- cocaine markets.

The hypothesis of this paper that each person within the age group twenty to twenty- nine

has a high chance of committing murder rate is not rational. The authors do not take into account

gender and race of these individuals. On average, men have a higher arrest rate than women for

murders13. “Males represent nearly 90% of all homicide offenders. The offending rates for males

were eight times higher than the rates for females”14. Furthermore, there was a decrease in the

number of females arrested in homicide in the early 1980s15, which means that men were liable

for most of the murders during these years. It could be plausible that the period which had

dramatically soaring murder rates could have been due to a higher number of males comprising

this age group. Nunley et. al assumed that an increase in the general population of twenty to

twenty- nine year olds resulted in the high murder rates, yet, they do not consider dividing the

age group up into gender and race in order to understand the effects well. Furthermore, on

average, the arrest rates related to killings are highest for Blacks when measured up to to any

other race. “Blacks are disproportionately represented as both homicide offenders. The offending

rates for blacks were more than seven times the rates for whites”16 as evident from table six in

the appendix. Likewise, it could be practical to suppose that the individuals (most probably

females) not likely to commit crime made up majority of this age group throughout the 1980s,

when the twenty- to twenty- nine age group population was low yet the murder rates were at a

rise. Thus, there must have been other stronger variables that were responsible, other than the age

group.

Nunley et al. disregard other potentially powerful variables that may have been in charge

of the alterations in the murder rates, in addition to the age group argument. Some of the ignored

variables are: media hype, multiple offenders or victims, errors in calculations of murders,

effects of baby boom cohorts and economic booms.

In the 1990s, the murder rate fell twenty percent and the new coverage increased by six-

hundred percent during the same time17. Graph five shows the striking decline during the

nineties. It demonstrates a slight increase in homicide rates in the late nineties, towards

millennium; this could be the aftermath of all the media coverage on murder rates. Criminal

behaviour can be triggered by widespread media hype as this promotes a frightened atmosphere.

Additionally, as the rate of crime is high within a populace and particularly among certain areas

of the population, the chances of one adapting to criminal behaviour get higher. Southern United

States has the highest homicide rate, which creates a never ending cycle of crime. Murder rates

in this region are well above average compared to the overall crime numbers18.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the number of homicides that involved multiple offenders and

victims increased radically. It went to sixteen percent in 1997, compared to ten percent in 1976.

This figure rose to twenty percent in 200519. According to the Bureau of Justice Studies U.S.

“The proportion of homicides involving multiple victims increased gradually during the last two

decades from 3.1% of all homicides in 1976 to 4.4% in 2005”20. This is consistent in graph five,

with the increasing trend of multiple murders, committed by a single individual, the overall rate

rises as well. From the late 1940s to the early 1960s, there was a sudden decline in murder rate

(in fact it was the lowest rate), however, as we approach the 1970s and onward, the rate increases

again (generally speaking). The trend in graph seven in the appendix is highly relatable to the

patterns in graph five when we study it from 1970s towards millennium.

There may have been an error in calculating the murder rate. There could have been a

high possibility that deaths declared as murders may have been suicides. Different methods of

calculation can lead to a ten to fifty percent change in the results21. Graph five signifies a hike in

murder rates in the 1930s. This could have been as a result of the Great Depression which took

place from 1929 to 193922. Unemployment during this time could have resulted in higher suicide

rates, and hence mistaken for murders. “Many sank into despair and shame after they could not

find jobs. The suicide rates increased from fourteen to seventeen per one- hundred thousand”23.

Graph eight in the index for unemployment statistics during this time. It is evident that

employment was at its lowest, emphasizing the possibility of suicides or robberies, as aforesaid.

Graph nine in the appendix shows the increase in divorce, unemployment and suicides during the

Great Depression, strengthening the argument that these three variables are high correlated with

murder rates.

Nunley et. al did not take into account the role of baby boom cohorts, with a higher than

average population, crime will logically rise. The boost in murder rate in the 1980s was probably

due to postwar baby boom which initiated in the 1947 birth group. It would be reasonable to

assume the acceleration of crime in the 1960s and 1970s was the product of baby boom cohorts

moving into the ‘crime age’ (below twenty- five years). With more individuals in this age

cluster, crime rose to peaks, generating a cycle of stimulating more members to appoint in

crimes24.

The decline in the crime rate can be accounted for the strong economy in the 1990s,

which resulted in a decrease in violence. With numerous new jobs in the job market, employers

were able to attract youth. This provided juveniles another way to make money instead of getting

involved in illegal ways of making a living. Before this economic boom, there were no legitimate

employment opportunities. There was a drop in demand for crack and other drugs with the

economic expansion of the nineties, leading to a decrease in the murder rate25, as revealed in

graph five.

1Footnotes

Bruce J. Cohen, ed., Crime in America (Michigan: F.E. Peacock Inc., 1970), 146.2 Bruce J. Cohen, ed., Crime in America (Michigan: F.E. Peacock Inc., 1970), 150-151.3 Bruce J. Cohen, ed., Crime in America (Michigan: F.E. Peacock Inc., 1970), 151.4 David L. Bender, America's Cities Opposing Viewpoints (Opposing Viewpoints Series) (San Diego: Greenhaven Pr, 1993), 123.5 "Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Long Term Trends and Patterns," Office of Justice Programs, section goes here, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm (accessed November 22, 2009).6 Bruce J. Cohen, ed., Crime in America (Michigan: F.E. Peacock Inc., 1970), 370.7 Committee on Understanding Crime Trends, Understanding Crime Trends: Workshop Report (Washington: National Academies P, 2008), 16.8 David L. Bender, America's Cities Opposing Viewpoints (Opposing Viewpoints Series) (San Diego: Greenhaven Pr, 1993), 113.9 Bruce J. Cohen, ed., Crime in America (Michigan: F.E. Peacock Inc., 1970), 50.10 Joel A. Devine, Joseph F. Sheley, and Dwayne Smith, "Macroeconomic and Social- Control Policy Influences in Crime Rate Changes, 1948- 1985," American Sociological Review 53, no. 3 (June 1988): 7, http://www.jstor.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/2095648 (accessed November 19, 2009).11 John Nunley, Alan Seals, and Joachim Zietz, "Demographic Change and the Murder Rate: The Case of the United States, 1934 to 2006," MPRA (June 2009): 2, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/16315 (accessed November 15, 2009).12 John Nunley, Alan Seals, and Joachim Zietz, "Demographic Change and the Murder Rate: The Case of the United States, 1934 to 2006," MPRA (June 2009): 3, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/16315 (accessed November 15, 2009).13 "Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Contents," Office of Justice Programs, second page, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm (accessed November 22, 2009).14 "Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Long Term Trends and Patterns," Office of Justice Programs, first page, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm (accessed November 22, 2009).15 Bruce J. Cohen, ed., Crime in America (Michigan: F.E. Peacock Inc., 1970), 151.16 "Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Long Term Trends and Patterns," Office of Justice Programs, first page, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm (accessed November 22, 2009).17 Sylvia M. Hale, Controversies In Sociology (Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc., 1995), 170.18 "Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Contents," Office of Justice Programs, third page, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm (accessed November 22, 2009).19 "Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Contents," Office of Justice Programs, second page, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/multiple.htm (accessed November 22, 2009).20 "Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Multiple victims and offenders," Office of Justice Programs, first page, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/multiple.htm (accessed November 23, 2009).21 Sylvia M. Hale, Controversies In Sociology (Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc., 1995), 142.22 "The Great Depression (1929-1939): historical context, economic impact and related links," Canadian economy online, first page, http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/1929_39depression.html (accessed November 23, 2009).23 "The Great Depression," U.S. National Park Service - Experience Your America, front page, http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/great-depression.htm (accessed November 22, 2009).24 Committee on Understanding Crime Trends, Understanding Crime Trends: Workshop Report (Washington: National Academies P, 2008), 15.25 David L. Bender, America's Cities Opposing Viewpoints (Opposing Viewpoints Series) (San Diego: Greenhaven Pr, 1993), 113.

Appendix

Table 1

Source: Bruce J. Cohen, ed., Crime in America (Michigan: F.E. Peacock Inc., 1970), 150.

Table 2

Victims and Offenders by Demographic Group, 1976-2005

   Percent of -

Rate per 100,000population

    Victims Offenders Population Victims Offenders

  Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 7.8   8.7  

Age              

 Under 14

4.8% .5% 20.5% 1.8   .2  

  14-17 5.0% 10.4% 6.1% 6.4   14.9  

  18-24 23.9% 36.6% 10.8% 17.0   29.3  

  25-34 28.8% 28.4% 15.7% 14.2   15.8  

  35-49 22.8% 17.3% 20.5% 8.6   7.3  

  50-64 9.3% 5.1% 14.2% 5.1   3.1  

  65+ 5.3% 1.7% 12.3% 3.4   1.2  

Gender              

  Male 76.5% 88.8% 48.8% 12.3   15.8  

  Female 23.5% 11.2% 51.2% 3.6   1.9  

Race              

  White 50.9% 45.8% 83.7% 4.7   4.8  

  Black 46.9% 52.2% 12.3% 29.6   36.9  

  Other 2.1% 2.0% 4.0% 4.1   4.4

Source: "Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Long Term Trends and Patterns," Office of Justice Programs, under the 'demographic characteristics of homicide victims and offenders differ from the general population', http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm (accessed November 22, 2009).

Table 3

Source: Bruce J. Cohen, ed., Crime in America (Michigan: F.E. Peacock Inc., 1970), 49.

Graph 4

Source : Committee on Understanding Crime Trends, Understanding Crime Trends: Workshop Report (Washington: National Academies P, 2008), 15.

Graph 5

Source: John Nunley, Alan Seals, and Joachim Zietz, "Demographic Change and the Murder Rate: The Case of the United States, 1934 to 2006," MPRA (June 2009): 30, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/16315 (accessed November 15, 2009).

Table 6

Source: "Uniform Crime Reports," U.S. Department of Justice (1999): 9.

Graph 7

Source: "Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Multiple victims and offenders," Office of Justice Programs, first page, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/multiple.htm (accessed November 23, 2009).

Graph 8

Source: Bradford Long, "The Changing Cyclical Variability of the American Economy," Cyclical_Variability, third page, http://j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/2000/seven/Cyclical_Variability.pdf (accessed November 23, 2009).

Graph 9

Source: Bertrand M. Roehner, Driving Forces in Physical, Biological and Socio-economic Phenomena A Network Science Investigation of Social Bonds and Interactions (New York: Cambridge UP, 2007), 200.

Bibliography

Bender, David L. America's Cities Opposing Viewpoints (Opposing Viewpoints Series). San Diego: Greenhaven Pr, 1993.

"Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Contents." Office of Justice Programs. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm (accessed November 22, 2009).

"Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Long Term Trends and Patterns." Office of Justice Programs. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm (accessed November 22, 2009).

"Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Multiple victims and offenders." Office of Justice Programs. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/multiple.htm (accessed November 23, 2009).

Cohen, Bruce J., ed. Crime in America. Michigan: F.E. Peacock Inc., 1970.

Committee on Understanding Crime Trends. Understanding Crime Trends: Workshop Report. Washington: National Academies P, 2008.

Devine, Joel A., Joseph F. Sheley, and Dwayne Smith. "Macroeconomic and Social- Control Policy Influences in Crime Rate Changes, 1948- 1985." American Sociological Review 53, no. 3 (June 1988): 407-20. http://www.jstor.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/2095648 (accessed November 19, 2009).

"The Great Depression (1929-1939): historical context, economic impact and related links." Canadian economy online. http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/1929_39depression.html (accessed November 23, 2009).

"The Great Depression." U.S. National Park Service - Experience Your America. http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/great-depression.htm (accessed November 22, 2009).

Hale, Sylvia M. Controversies In Sociology. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc., 1995.

Long, Bradford. "The Changing Cyclical Variability of the American Economy." Cyclical_Variability. http://j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/2000/seven/Cyclical_Variability.pdf (accessed November 23, 2009).

Nunley, John, Alan Seals, and Joachim Zietz. "Demographic Change and the Murder Rate: The Case of the United States, 1934 to 2006." MPRA (June 2009): 1-30. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/16315 (accessed November 15, 2009).

Roehner, Bertrand M. Driving Forces in Physical, Biological and Socio-economic Phenomena A Network Science Investigation of Social Bonds and Interactions. New York: Cambridge UP, 2007.

"Uniform Crime Reports." U.S. Department of Justice (1999): 1-125.