With the wildly high murder rates in Chicago and Detroit, will Pittsburgh follow that trend? (Allentown: middle-class, chapel)

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by pfflyernc

One thing that's worked very well for them, which was developed during Ed Koch's term, was to increase the number of "beat cops" in high-crime areas. They used computer mapping to identify hot spots, and focused their efforts there. It was amazing.

Here's a pretty good article from Scientific American on the NYC story.

It was/ is Lead (maybe):

America's Real Criminal Element: Lead | Mother Jones

Are Big Cities More Dangerous Than Small Ones? | Mother Jones

Lead and Crime: How It Connects to Race | Mother Jones

[slamont61]

Pittsburgh will NEVER be in the same category regarding murder rates as Chi-town or Detroit. Never.

[TheYO]

Originally Posted by slamont61

Pittsburgh will NEVER be in the same category regarding murder rates as Chi-town or Detroit. Never.

Pittsburgh already is in the same category as Chicago.

Look at the stats I posted on the first page of this topic. Pittsburgh isn't that far behind Chicago. The difference between Pittsburgh and Chicago is a lot smaller than the difference between Chicago and Detroit.

The reason Chicago gets all the attention is the sheer number of murders that happen there. 500 murders in a year looks really bad, compared to 40 in Pittsburgh. However, Chicago is literally 11 times the size of Pittsburgh, so their murder rates are rather similar.

[pfflyernc]

Beat me to it, TheYO.

[gg]

Originally Posted by TheYO

Pittsburgh already is in the same category as Chicago.

Look at the stats I posted on the first page of this topic. Pittsburgh isn't that far behind Chicago. The difference between Pittsburgh and Chicago is a lot smaller than the difference between Chicago and Detroit.

The reason Chicago gets all the attention is the sheer number of murders that happen there. 500 murders in a year looks really bad, compared to 40 in Pittsburgh. However, Chicago is literally 11 times the size of Pittsburgh, so their murder rates are rather similar.

Yeah, I think per capita is the only way to look at crime, but there is one variable that may skew that a bit. If Chicago has huge city limits, could it be argued that Pittsburgh's small city limits are a factor in the comparison? I don't know, but I still think per capita is the only way to look at crime.

[Goinback2011]

From one of Lobick's Mother Jones' links:

The tragedy of all this is hard to overstate. In the 40s and 50s we exposed black children to enormous amounts of lead—far more than white children were exposed to.

That's simply not true. Lead-based paint was everywhere prior to 1977 and gasoline with lead was everywhere prior to the mid 70's.

You could argue that black children of the 80's and 90's were exposed to more lead than white children, although that presumes that they were eating chunks of old paint.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

From one of Lobick's Mother Jones' links:



That's simply not true. Lead-based paint was everywhere prior to 1977 and gasoline with lead was everywhere prior to the mid 70's.

You could argue that black children of the 80's and 90's were exposed to more lead than white children, although that presumes that they were eating chunks of old paint.

I've nothing personalty invested in the veracity of the statement that you've objected to but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the methodology behind the statement wasn't a bit more rigorous than you suggest in your somewhat flippant response. See the below snippet:

Nevin's 2007 paper on international crime trends:

In 1960, blacks occupied 15% of central city households and 56% of substandard central city housing.... Average 1976–1980 blood lead for black children ages 6–36 months was 50% above the average for white children....Those children were juveniles when the 1990–1994 black juvenile burglary arrest rate was 60% higher than the white rate, but the black juvenile violent crime arrest rate was five times higher and the black juvenile murder rate was eight times higher.

....Social trends cannot explain why the 1990s homicide decline was so pronounced among juvenile offenders, and especially black juveniles, but blood lead trends can. Blood lead prevalence over 30 mg/dL among white USA children fell from 2% in 1976–1980 to less than 0.5% in 1988–1991, as prevalence over 30 mg/dL among black children plummeted from 12% to below 1%. The white juvenile murder arrest rate then fell from 6.4 to 2.1 from 1993–2003, as the black juvenile rate fell from 58.6 to 9.7. That 83% fall in the black juvenile murder arrest rate occurred with just 36% of black children living in two-parent families in 1993, and in 2003.

[CaptainPittsburgh]

The tragedy of all this is hard to overstate. In the 40s and 50s we exposed black children to enormous amounts of lead...also, institutionalized racism and crippling social injustice—far more than white children were exposed to.

Tweaked that one.

Edit: I am open to lead being a factor as well, but, still...just saying.

[Goinback2011]

Lobick, everyone has their favorite theory for a declining crime rate. The author of 'Freakonomics' claims it was legalizing abortion that accounts for lower crime beginning in the early 1990's. He says you saw the decrease first in NYC because that's the first state that legalized abortion.

Average 1976–1980 blood lead for black children ages 6–36 months was 50% above the average for white children

The only thing this statistic tells you is that white people painted their homes more often than black people after lead paint was outlawed in 1977. It says nothing about differential lead levels in the blood of children in the 1940's and 50's as the author's previous statement claims.

[TheYO]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Yeah, I think per capita is the only way to look at crime, but there is one variable that may skew that a bit. If Chicago has huge city limits, could it be argued that Pittsburgh's small city limits are a factor in the comparison? I don't know, but I still think per capita is the only way to look at crime.

When I said Chicago is 11 times the size of Pittsburgh, I meant in terms of population, not land area. Chicago is larger in terms of land area as well, but it's only about 4 times bigger than Pittsburgh in that regard. (Chicago is 227.2 square miles. Pittsburgh is 55.5 square miles)