Please wait as we load hundreds of rigorously documented facts for you.



What You’ll Find

For example:


Citation Generator
X
APA
MLA
Chicago (for footnotes)
Chicago (for bibliographies)

Introductory Notes

Data Accuracy

* Per the Journal of Law and Economics, “all counts of crimes and their costs are vulnerable to missing data.”[1] As such, most sections of this research contain a subsection that documents the limitations of the cited data.

* The footnotes of the studies cited in this research often contain additional information about data sources and methodologies.

* Many aspects of crime are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys,[2] but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating.[3] Thus, Just Facts uses this data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results.

* For facts about what constitutes a scientific survey and the factors that impact their accuracy, visit Just Facts Academy’s lesson on Deconstructing Polls & Surveys.


FBI Data Accessibility

* Each year in the fall, the FBI releases its annual crime statistics from the prior year in a report titled “Crime in the United States.”[4] [5]

* Before 2021, the FBI published its Crime in the United States reports and datasets on permalink-accessible webpages.[6] [7]

* Since 2021 (the first year of the Biden administration[8]), the FBI has only published those reports and datasets via a “Crime Data Explorer.” This interface contains a fragmented, vaguely worded maze of dropdown menus and acronyms with expiring hyperlinks, which:

  • has limited public and media access to the data.[9]
  • led NewsNation to underreport the FBI’s estimate of murders in 2021 by 8,223 people.[10] [11]

* To make the FBI data more accessible, Just Facts has posted the FBI’s reports and datasets for 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Instructions on how to create permalinks to specific pages of these documents are provided in this footnote.[12]

* Data for earlier years are still readily available from the FBI.

Homicide/Murder

Definitions

* Homicide, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, is “the killing of one person by another, regardless of intention or legality.”[13]

* Homicides are generally grouped into the following categories, some of which vary depending upon the laws of each state:

  • First-degree murder is typically the intentional killing of one human being by another in a manner that is planned or premeditated.[14] A real-life example occurred when four MS-13 gang members drove a 14-year-old girl to a wooded area to slay her with a machete and baseball bat.[15] [16] Many states also classify unplanned homicides as first-degree murders when victims are killed during planned violent felonies, like robbery, rape, or arson. This is called “felony murder.”[17]
  • Second-degree murder is typically the intentional killing of one human being by another in a manner that isn’t pre-planned.[18] [19] A real-life example occurred when New York City teens stabbed a college student to death after she fought their attempt to rob her.[20] [21]
  • Third-degree murder is typically the unintentional killing of one human being by another due to extreme disregard for human life.[22] [23] A real-life example occurred when a woman caused the death of two people by engaging in a drag race.[24] Most states don’t have a separate legal classification for third-degree murder.[25]
  • Voluntary or non-negligent manslaughter is typically the intentional killing of one human being by another without prior malice and in the heat of sudden rage.[26] [27] A real-life example occurred when a woman killed her husband when she caught him in the act of adultery.[28]
  • Involuntary or negligent manslaughter is typically the accidental killing of one human being by another due to severe carelessness, like driving recklessly or leaving a poisonous substance where a child could ingest it.[29] A real-life example occurred when an abortionist gave a lethal dose of anesthesia to a woman.[30]
  • Justifiable homicide is typically the legal killing of one human by another for reasons such as self-defense.[31] A real-life example occurred when a man shot and killed two Black Lives Matter activists who attacked him.[32] [33]

Data Accuracy

* Per the World Bank:

The intentional killing of a human being by another is the ultimate crime. Its indisputable physical consequences manifested in the form of a dead body also make it the most categorical and calculable.[34] [35] [36]

* The federal government publishes two primary measures of homicide:

  1. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report
  2. Death certificate data compiled by the CDC.[37]

* Per the U.S. Department of Justice, death certificates provide “more accurate homicide trends at the national level than” FBI data because:

  • the reporting of death certificates is “mandatory,” while the FBI relies on “voluntary” reports “from individual law enforcement agencies” that are “compiled monthly by state-level agencies.”
  • death certificates include homicides that “occur in federal jurisdictions,” while FBI statistics rarely include “homicides occurring in federal prisons, on military bases, and on Indian reservations.”
  • unlike FBI data, death certificates include homicides caused by the deliberate “crashing of a motor vehicle, but this category generally accounts for less than 100 deaths per year.”
  • unlike FBI data, death certificates include homicides from foreign terrorist acts, particularly the 2,977 people slaughtered on September 11, 2001.[38] [39]

* To generate crime statistics for law enforcement agencies that don’t provide data to the FBI, the FBI uses a “complex estimation process to account for unreported data.”[40]

* When the FBI transitioned to a new reporting system in 2021, agencies that submitted crime data to the FBI covered about 65% of the U.S. population, a decline from more than 90% in prior years.[41] [42] Hence, the FBI estimated that 21,300 to 24,600 murders occurred in 2021, an uncertainty of 3,300 murders.[43]

* In 2023, agencies that submitted crime data to the FBI covered 94.3% of the U.S. population.[44]

* The number of homicides recorded on death certificates tend to overcount murders because they include:

  • “justifiable homicides” by civilians acting in self-defense, which are not murders.[45] [46]
  • some justifiable homicides by police, even though these are supposed to be coded as “legal intervention deaths,” not as homicides.[47] [48]

* A 2014 DOJ report states that “a more comprehensive understanding of homicide in the United States can perhaps be achieved by combining the strengths” of the FBI and death certificate “data collection systems.”[49] Just Facts has developed a methodology to do this by using data from both sources and a scholarly journal to produce murder estimates that:[50]

  • start with homicide data from death certificates.[51] [52]
  • subtract out the approximate number of justifiable homicides by civilians based on data from the FBI.[53]
  • subtract out the approximate number of wrongly coded justifiable homicides by police based on data from the American Journal of Public Health.[54]
  • yield figures about 4.2% lower than the number of homicides recorded on death certificates but higher than FBI murder estimates.[55]

* In 2023 during the Biden administration, the FBI made unmarked and unprecedented revisions to murder data for the prior two decades. These changes increased annual murder estimates during prior presidencies by as much as 7% and decreased estimates during Biden’s presidency by as much as 5%.[56]

* As a result of the FBI’s 2023 revisions and other factors, the number of homicides recorded on death certificates that were not reported as murders by the FBI rose from a low of 16 killings in 2003 to an average of 3,711 killings per year during Biden’s presidency:

Gaps Between FBI Murders & Death Certificate Homicides

[57]

* Unless otherwise stated, the murder figures below reflect Just Facts’ methodology.


Prevalence

* Since 1999, the annual number of murders in the United States has varied as follows:

Murders in the United States

[58]

* Roughly 21,757 people were murdered in the U.S. during 2023,[59] or one out of every 15,632 people in the nation.[60]

* Per the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics:

Annual victimization rates alone do not convey the full impact of crime as it affects people. No one would express his or her concern by saying, “I am terribly afraid of being mugged between January and December of this year.” People are worried about the possibility that at some time in their lives they will be robbed or raped or assaulted, or their homes will be burglarized.
 
The problem lies with people’s perception of the meaning of annual rates with respect to their own lives. If the Earth revolved around the sun in 180 days, all of our annual crime rates would be halved, but we would not be safer.[61]

* If the U.S. murder rate remains at the same level as in 2023, one in every 200 people in the nation will ultimately be murdered.[62]

* In 2023, the U.S. murder rate was 14% lower than the modern peak in 2021 and 36% higher than the modern low in 2014:

U.S. Murder Rate

[63]

* Under three comparative measures, U.S. murder/homicide rates have varied as follows since 1960:

U.S. Murder/Homicide Rates Since 1960

[64] [65]


Assault Lethality

* Roughly 80% of murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms.[66]

* In 1964, about 16% of recorded aggravated assaults with a firearm resulted in death. By 1999, this figure fell to about 5%. Per a 2002 paper in the journal Homicide Studies:

  • The “principal explanation” for this “downward trend in lethality” is improvements “in medical technology and related medical support services,” such as increased numbers of “local and county hospitals throughout the nation.”
  • One of the “greatest lethality drops” occurred immediately after the Vietnam War because the experience of this conflict led to major advances in trauma care.
  • Medical progress has “suppressed the homicide rate compared to what it would be had such progress not been made.”[67]

Justice System

* In the United States, the portion of murders in which a suspect is identified and acted upon by the criminal justice system declined from 92% in 1960 to 58% in 2023.[68] [69] In some cities like Chicago, this figure has been as low as 25%.[70]

* From 1965 to 2022, roughly 337,601 murders were committed in the U.S. that were still unsolved as of 2022.[71] [72]

* Some factors associated with unsolved murders include:

  • the nature of relationships between perpetrators and victims, as cases involving the murder of strangers are more difficult to solve.
  • police practices and resources, which are stretched thin in neighborhoods with high crime rates.
  • lack of witness cooperation due to fear of reprisal or hostility towards police.[73] [74]

* People released from prison in 2018 who were serving time for murder had been jailed for an average of 17.8 years and a median of 17.5 years.[75] [76]

* In 2023, the police chief of Washington DC reported that “the average homicide suspect has been arrested 11 times prior to them committing a homicide.”[77]

* Among suspects arrested for homicide during 2019 in Baltimore, Maryland:

  • 81% had prior criminal records.
  • 52% were previously arrested for violent crimes.
  • 27% were on parole and probation.
  • they were previously arrested an average of eight times.[78] [79] [80] [81]

* Of 1,662 murders committed in New York City during 2003 to 2005, more than 90% of the known killers were people with criminal records.[82] [83]

Violent Crime

Definitions

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, “violent crime consists of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.”[84] This doesn’t include:

  • non-rape sexual assault.
  • attempted robberies.
  • verbal threats of rape.
  • simple assault.[85]

* As measured by the DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey,[86] “violent crime” includes “rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.” This doesn’t include:

  • “homicide because the National Crime Victimization Survey is based on interviews with victims.”
  • crimes committed against children under the age of 12.[87] [88]

Data Accuracy

* Beyond using a restricted definition of what constitutes violent crime, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report:

  • doesn’t count crimes that aren’t reported to the police.
  • relies on “voluntary” reports “from individual law enforcement agencies.”[89] [90]
  • determines crime statistics for agencies that don’t provide data to the FBI by using a “complex estimation process to account for unreported data.”[91] [92]

* Police departments in New York City and Philadelphia have falsified crime data to downplay the prevalence of violent crime.[93] [94] [95] [96] [97]

* The FBI warns that “data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data” from its annual crime reports because:

changes in police procedures, shifting attitudes toward crime and police, and other societal changes can affect the extent to which people report and law enforcement agencies record crime.[98]

* Beyond using a restricted definition of what constitutes violent crime, the DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey includes simple assaults in its violent crime rates,[99] which often involve no injuries or minor ones.[100]

* Per a book about violence published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) “is widely viewed as a ‘gold standard for measuring crime victimization’ ” but is “beset with methodological problems of surveys in general as well as particular problems associated with measuring illicit, deviant, and deleterious activities….”[101] [102] [103]


Prevalence

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 1,218,467 violent crimes were committed in the U.S. during 2023. This equals one violent crime for every 275 people.[104]

* As measured by the DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey, 6,419,060 violent crimes were committed in the U.S. during 2023, or 5.3 times the FBI estimate. This equals one violent crime for every 44 people aged 12 and older.[105]

* Per the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics:

Annual victimization rates alone do not convey the full impact of crime as it affects people. No one would express his or her concern by saying, “I am terribly afraid of being mugged between January and December of this year.” People are worried about the possibility that at some time in their lives they will be robbed or raped or assaulted, or their homes will be burglarized.[106]

* A Bureau of Justice Statistics study based on crime data from 1974 to 1985 found that:

  • 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime in the course of their lives.
  • 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime.
  • 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once.[107]

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, violent crime rates have varied as follows since 1960:

Violent Crime Rate Based on FBI Data

[108] [109] [110]

* As measured by the DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey, violent crime rates have varied as follows since 1993:

Violent Crime Rate Based on DOJ Data

[111]


Justice System

* During 2023, law enforcement agencies reported that 46% of aggravated assaults, 28% of robberies, and 27% of rapes reported to police resulted in an alleged offender being identified and acted upon by the criminal justice system.[112]

* During 2023, one person was arrested for every:

  • 10.9 robberies that were committed.
  • 3.7 aggravated assaults that were committed.[113]

* A 2021 U.S. Justice Department study found that the median amount of time served in state prison for:

  • rape was 7.2 years, and the average was 9.6 years.
  • robbery was 3.2 years, and the average was 4.8 years.
  • assault was 1.4 years, and the average was 2.5 years.[114] [115]

* A 2021 U.S. Justice Department study of 408,300 former state prisoners released from state prisons in 2012 found that within five years of their release:

  • 71% were arrested for committing a new offense.
  • 28% were arrested for committing a new violent offense.
  • they were arrested 1,113,000 times, an average of 2.7 arrests per released prisoner.
  • 97% of those arrested were detained for an offense other than a probation or parole violation.
  • they were arrested for an estimated 3,266 new homicides, 5,716 new rapes/sexual assaults, 19,598 new robberies, and 88,192 new assaults.[116]

* A 2014 U.S. Justice Department study of 404,638 convicts released from state prisons in 2005 found that within five years of their release:

  • 77% were arrested for committing a new offense.
  • 29% were arrested for committing a new violent offense.
  • they were arrested for an estimated 3,642 new homicides, 6,879 new rapes/sexual assaults, 22,255 new robberies, and 93,067 new assaults.[117]

* A 2018 update of the study above found that within nine years of convicts’ release from state prisons in 2005:

  • 83% were arrested for committing a new offense.
  • 99% of those arrested were detained for an offense other than a probation or parole violation.
  • they were arrested nearly 2 million times, an average of 5 arrests per released prisoner.[118]

Rape & Sexual Assault

Definitions

* The FBI defines “rape” as the “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”[119] [120]

* The DOJ defines “rape” as:

Coerced or forced sexual intercourse. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category could include incidents where the penetration was from a foreign object such as a bottle.[121]

* A federal law that governs the conduct of military personnel defines “rape” in ways that involve sexual “penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object” as a result of:

  • “force,” or
  • threats of “bodily harm,” or
  • “rendering” someone “unconscious,” or
  • giving someone “without the knowledge or consent of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct.”[122]

* In addition to the definitions above, a 2014 report by the CDC measures the prevalence of rape by including people who had sex and later said that they were “unable to consent” because they “voluntarily consumed” substances that made them “drunk” or “high.”[123] [124]


* The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report doesn’t publish data on sexual assault, and the FBI’s publication “Crime in the United States” doesn’t provide a definition of sexual assault.[125]

* The DOJ defines “sexual assault” as a “wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape” that:

includes attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender, with or without force. Includes grabbing or fondling and verbal threats.[126]

* A federal law that governs the conduct of military personnel defines “sexual assault” in ways that involve “a sexual act upon another person” while:

  • “threatening or placing” someone “in fear,” or
  • “causing bodily harm to that other person,” or
  • “making a fraudulent representation that the sexual act serves a professional purpose,” or
  • inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is another person,” or
  • knowing “that the other person is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act is occurring,” or
  • “the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act” due to:
    • “impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person,” or
    • “a mental disease or defect, or physical disability, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person.”[127]

* In addition to the definitions above, a 2014 report study by the CDC measures the prevalence of “sexual violence” by including people who have been “flashed,” “verbally harassed,” kissed without consent, or engaged in sex because they felt “pressured in a nonphysical way.” Along with situations like a boss “using their influence or authority over you,” this can also involve someone:

  • “telling you lies.”
  • “making promises about the future they knew were untrue.”
  • “wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy.”[128]

Data Accuracy

* The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report:

  • doesn’t count rapes that aren’t reported to the police.
  • relies on “voluntary” reports “from individual law enforcement agencies.”[129] [130]
  • determines rape statistics for agencies that don’t provide data to the FBI by using a “complex estimation process to account for unreported data.”[131] [132]

* The FBI warns that “data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data” from its annual crime reports because:

changes in police procedures, shifting attitudes toward crime and police, and other societal changes can affect the extent to which people report and law enforcement agencies record crime.[133]

* With regard to whether or not people report rapes to the police, a study published by the DOJ in 2012 found that 65% of rapes and sexual assaults were not reported to the police during 2007–2010. This was based on a nationally representative sample of people who said they were raped or assaulted but didn’t report it. When asked why they didn’t report these crimes to police:

  • 28% said they feared reprisal or getting the offender in trouble.
  • 20% said they dealt with it in another way or considered it a personal matter.
  • 13% said they thought the police wouldn’t help.
  • 6% said they felt the incident was not important enough to report.
  • 33% gave another reason or said they didn’t have a single most-important reason.[134]

* With regard to whether or not police record all rapes that are reported to them:

  • numerous investigations have found “staggering numbers of untested” sexual assault kits in law enforcement custody.[135]
  • police departments in New York City and Philadelphia have falsified crime data to downplay the prevalence of violent crime.[136] [137] [138] [139] [140]

* With regard to whether or not people report rapes in the DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey, a study of college females conducted in 1997 found they were:

  • twice as likely to say they had been the victim of acts that constitute rape than to say they were raped.[141]
  • 11 times as likely to report they had been the victim of acts that constitute rape when they were asked graphic questions about these acts than when they were asked the questions posed in the National Crime Victimization Survey.[142]

* With regard to false reports of rape, a 2006 paper in the Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling documents that “there is currently no way of knowing” how often such accusations are made because:

Determining whether allegations are true or false can be extremely difficult. And, at times, the investigator will simply not have enough evidence to deem with any sufficiently small margin of error that the charges are in fact true or false.[143]

* Per a 2018 academic serial work about false reports of crime:

There is no shortage of politicians, victim’s advocates, and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report rate for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2%. This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality.[144]

* For facts about the origin and inaccuracy of the 2% figure, see Just Facts’ article “Rape Facts and Falsehoods.”


Prevalence

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 127,216 rapes were committed in the U.S. during 2023. This equals one rape for every 2,633 people.[145]

* As measured by the DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey, 481,020 rapes or sexual assaults were committed in the U.S. during 2023, or 3.8 times the FBI’s estimate of rapes. This equals one rape or sexual assault for every 592 people aged 12 and older.[146]

* Per the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics:

Annual victimization rates alone do not convey the full impact of crime as it affects people. No one would express his or her concern by saying, “I am terribly afraid of being mugged between January and December of this year.” People are worried about the possibility that at some time in their lives they will be robbed or raped or assaulted, or their homes will be burglarized.[147]

* A 2011 scientific survey of people aged 18 and older found that 10.3–12.7% of women and 0.5–1.1% of men said they have been the victims of acts that constitute forcible rape at some point in their lives.[148] [149] These figures don’t:

  • include rape attempts.
  • include non-forcible alcohol- or drug-facilitated rapes.[150] [151]
  • account for the fact that some respondents will be victimized later in life.[152] [153]

* Using a definition of rape that also includes sex “when a person is unable to consent to it” because “they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs,” the same 2011 survey found that 19% of women and 2% of men said they have been the victims of acts that constitute rape at some point in their lives.[154] [155]

* Using a definition of “sexual violence” that also includes the acts detailed below, the same 2011 survey found that 44% of women and 23% of men experienced “sexual violence” other than rape during their lifetimes. These figures include people who said they:

  • engaged in sex because someone made “promises about the future they knew were untrue.”
  • engaged in sex because someone told them “lies.”
  • engaged in sex because someone wore them “down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy.”
  • were kissed “in a sexual way” when they “didn’t want it to happen.”
  • were “flashed or forced to view sexually explicit media.”
  • were “verbally harassed” while they “were in a public place in a way that made” them “feel unsafe.”[156] [157]

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, annual rape rates have varied as follows since 1960:

Annual Rape Rate Based on FBI Data

[158] [159] [160]


Age-Related Risks

* A 2000 DOJ study of crimes reported to law enforcement in 12 states from 1991 to 1996 found that the incidence of forcible rape peaked at the ages of 14 and 15 years old:

Forcible Rape

[161] [162]

* A 2011 scientific survey of people aged 18 and older found that 40% of female rape victims were first raped before the age of 18, and 79% were first raped before the age of 25.[163] [164]

* For facts about rape in college, see Just Facts’ article “Rape Facts and Falsehoods.”


Alcohol & Drugs

* Per an academic textbook about analyzing data:

Association is not the same as causation. … Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.[165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170]

* With regard to associations between rape and the voluntary consumption of alcohol and drugs:

  • A 2014 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education reports that “campuses can’t talk about alcohol when it comes to sexual assault” because “administrators fear that if they counsel students to drink less, young women who get drunk and are assaulted will be blamed—and blame themselves.”[171]
  • A study of survey of survey data from 119 colleges published in 2004 by the Journal of Studies on Alcohol found that 72% of rape victims “experienced rape while intoxicated.”[172]
  • A 2005 study of 144 female sexual assault complainants at four “regionally diverse” U.S. clinics found that 62% of them tested positive for illicit drugs like “amphetamines, marijuana, cocaine, PCP, or opiates.”[173]
  • A study of female students at a public university in the Midwest published in 2008 by the Journal of Interpersonal Violence found that 88% of reported rapes were “substance-related” and “69% were due to the respondent’s inability to consent or resist due to her use of alcohol or substances in the absence of force.”[174]
  • A systematic review of studies about the involvement of drugs and alcohol in sexual assault published in 2008 by the journal Trauma, Violence, & Abuse found that “the consumption of alcohol and/or drugs” lowers a “person’s inhibitions and affects their judgment, and thus renders them more susceptible to sexual assault….”[175]

* For facts about date rape drugs, see Just Facts’ article “Rape Facts and Falsehoods.”


Justice System

* During 2023, law enforcement agencies reported that 27% of rapes reported to police resulted in an alleged offender being identified and acted upon by the criminal justice system.[176]

* A 2021 U.S. Justice Department study based on data from 2018 found that the median amount of time served in state prison for rape was 7.2 years, and the average was 9.6 years.[177] [178]

* Per a study published by the U.S. Department of Justice study in 2019:

  • “Among persons released from state prisons in 2005 across 30 states after serving a sentence for rape or sexual assault, 8% were arrested for rape or sexual assault during the 9 years after their release.”
  • “Overall, 67% of sex offenders released in 2005 were arrested at least once for any type of crime during the 9-year follow-up period.”
  • “Released sex offenders were more than three times as likely as other released prisoners to be arrested for rape or sexual assault (7.7% versus 2.3%).”[179]

* In the 1977 case of Coker v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (7 to 2) that the death penalty is “grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment for the crime of rape and is therefore forbidden by the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment.”[180]


Self-Protection

* Per an academic textbook about analyzing data:

Association is not the same as causation. … Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.[181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186]

* Based on a range of studies and data from 782 rapes and attempted rapes recorded by the National Crime Victimization Survey from 1992 to 2004, a 2008 paper in the journal Crime & Delinquency found that:

  • “victim resistance levels were inversely related to rape completion.”
  • “nonforceful verbal resistance” like “trying to reason with the offender, pleading, begging, or crying” has “generally been found to be ineffective in avoiding rape” except in some cases of acquaintance rape.
  • “forceful verbal resistance … aimed at scaring the offender and/or attracting outside help” reduced the odds of rape completion by 66%.
  • “forceful physical resistance” like “punching, biting, scratching, kicking” reduced the odds of rape completion by 85%.
  • resisting attempted rape with “an object, knife, or gun reduced the odds” of being raped by 91%.[187]

* Based on data from 733 rapes and 1,278 non-rape sexual assaults recorded by the National Crime Victimization Survey from 1992 to 2002, a 2014 paper in the journal Violence Against Women found that none of the 26 women who resisted these attacks with a gun, knife, or other weapon were raped or injured after she used the weapon.[188]

* With regard to studies that have found conflicting results about rape resistance tactics, a 2014 paper in Violence Against Women states:

Researchers who found positive associations between injury and self-protection (SP) actions, and concluded that resistance provoked offenders into attacking victims, failed to establish whether SP actions preceded or followed the offender’s inflicting of injury…. In these studies, crimes where a victim was injured before doing something to resist were effectively treated as cases in which resistance provoked injury. In contrast, studies that established the injury-SP sequence have generally found that all or most types of resistance either reduce the risk of subsequent injury or have no net effect one way or the other….[189]

* Per a 2008 paper in the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice about rape prevention strategies:

  • “The empirical data clearly have shown that forceful resistance strategies do increase avoidance of rape without increasing the risk of injury by strangers and known perpetrators.”
  • “Educating women how to identify and navigate different risky behaviors (e.g., alcohol and drug use, sexually coercive tactics), and situations (e.g., parties, bars, dating) coupled with learning how to use effective self-protective action when threatened or assaulted is critical to preventing rape.”
  • “Anecdotal evidence abounds as to the success of self-defense training, yet there are very few empirical evaluations of this type of training on woman’s likelihood of avoiding rape…. A few studies, primarily dissertations, have provided indirect support for the efficacy of self-defense training….”
  • “Rape awareness and educational programs” meant to change male mindsets “rarely work,” and “improved attitudes immediately following program participation typically rebound to preprogram levels within 2 to 5 months….”[190]

* A nationally representative survey of 4,446 college women conducted in 1997 found:

  • “For both completed and attempted rapes, about 9 in 10 offenders were known to the victim. Most often, a boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, classmate, friend, acquaintance, or coworker sexually victimized the women.”
  • “The majority of sexual victimizations, especially rapes and physically coerced sexual contact, occurred in living quarters.”
  • “51.8 percent of completed rapes took place after midnight, 36.5 percent occurred between 6 PM and midnight, and only 11.8 percent took place between 6 AM and 6 PM.”[191]

* Per Tom Patire, one of the world’s leading authorities on personal protection,[192] some of the best ways to prevent rape are:

  • “Keep away from isolated areas; stay on main roadways and well-lit streets; be alert to your surroundings…”
  • Be “selective in choosing the people with whom you fraternize.”
  • “If you do fall victim to rape, it’s important to keep your wits about you. Don’t expend all your energy on futile attempts to escape. Wait for your best moment—such as when your attacker is using his hands to pull down his pants—and then use your self-defense training, if you have any, or just hit (or kick) and run.”
  • “Notify the police” if you are stalked, and “if the behavior persists or escalates, file a harassment complaint” and/or “obtain a restraining order.”[193]

* With regard to using non-lethal weapons for self-defense, high-quality gel pepper sprays are inexpensive and can be legally and privately carried in most places.[194] [195] These two videos provide guidance on how to use them effectively.

* With regard to using firearms for self-defense:

  • facts on defensive gun use are available here.
  • facts on right-to-carry laws are available here.
  • the five critical rules of gun safety are available here.
  • an article in the leading firearms magazine Guns & Ammo explains:
Many gun owners seem to think that the mere possession of a firearm will render them able to contend with whatever life-threatening situations the world dishes out. History tells us otherwise, supporting the fact that individuals rarely (if ever) “rise to the occasion” under stress. Instead, they generally default to the skill level they have mastered. Hence, if you want to perform when it counts, training and practice are key.[196]

* This video from Just Facts summarizes the above facts about rape prevention:

Sex Trafficking

Definitions

* “Sex trafficking,” as defined by federal law, is a “severe” form of human trafficking “in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age….”[197] [198]

* Under federal law:

  • a “commercial sex act” is “any sex act on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.”[199]
  • “coercion” means any of the following:
    • “threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person.”
    • “any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person.”
    • “the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.”[200]
  • inducing someone under the age of 18 to perform a sex act in exchange for something of value (such as money, shelter, transportation, or food) is considered sex trafficking. Force, fraud, or coercion need not be involved.[201] [202] [203]

* Some of the federal penalties for child sex trafficking include:

  • a minimum prison sentence of 15 years and a maximum of life if the victim is under the age of 14, or if force, fraud, or coercion is involved.
  • a prison sentence of 10 years to life if the victim is 14 to 17 years old.[204]

* All the laws and penalties detailed above apply regardless of whether a child misrepresents herself or himself as an adult. Prosecutors are not required to prove that a defendant knew the victim was under the age of 18.[205] [206] [207]


Prevalence, Perpetrators & Prevention

* Accurate and comprehensive data on sex trafficking is scarce due to the covert nature of these crimes.[208] [209] [210] Many aspects of this issue can only be measured through surveys, but such surveys often involve nonrandom convenience samples that may not be representative of broader populations.[211]

* For extensive facts about sex trafficking victims, recruitment, coercion, facilitators, rescue, and prevention, visit Just Facts’ core research on sex trafficking.

Assault

Definitions

* The FBI defines “aggravated assault” as an “unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm.”[212]

* The DOJ defines “aggravated assault” as an “attack or attempted attack with a weapon, regardless of whether the victim is injured, or an attack without a weapon when serious injury results.”[213]

* The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report doesn’t publish data on simple assault, and the FBI’s publication “Crime in the United States” doesn’t provide a definition of simple assault.[214]

* The DOJ defines “simple assault” as an “attack or attempted attack without a weapon that results in no injury, minor injury (e.g., bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches, and swelling), or an undetermined injury requiring fewer than two days of hospitalization.”[215]


Data Accuracy

* The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report:

  • doesn’t count crimes that aren’t reported to the police.
  • relies on “voluntary” reports “from individual law enforcement agencies.”[216] [217]
  • determines crime statistics for agencies that don’t provide data to the FBI by using a “complex estimation process to account for unreported data.”[218] [219]

* Police departments in New York City and Philadelphia have falsified crime data to downplay the prevalence of violent crime.[220] [221] [222] [223] [224]

* The FBI warns that “data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data” from its annual crime reports because:

changes in police procedures, shifting attitudes toward crime and police, and other societal changes can affect the extent to which people report and law enforcement agencies record crime.[225]

Prevalence

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 884,550 aggravated assaults were committed in the U.S. during 2023. This equals one aggravated assault for every 379 people.[226]

* As measured by the DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey:

  • 1,273,200 aggravated assaults were committed in the U.S. during 2023, or 1.4 times the FBI estimate. This equals one aggravated assault for every 224 people aged 12 and older.[227]
  • 3,933,230 simple assaults were committed in the U.S. during 2023. This equals one simple assault for every 72 people aged 12 and older.[228]
  • 5,206,430 total assaults were committed in the U.S. during 2023. This equals one assault for every 55 people aged 12 and older.[229]

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, aggravated assault rates have varied as follows since 1960:

Aggravated Assault Rate Based on FBI Data

[230]


Justice System

* In 2023, law enforcement agencies reported that 46% of aggravated resulted in an alleged offender being identified and acted upon by the criminal justice system.[231]

* A 2021 U.S. Justice Department study based on data from 2018 found that the median amount of time served in state prison for assault was 1.4 years, and the average was 2.5 years.[232] [233]

Robbery

Definitions

* The FBI defines “robbery” as the “taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.”[234]

* The DOJ defines “robbery” similarly to the FBI.[235]


Data Accuracy

* The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report:

  • doesn’t count crimes that aren’t reported to the police.
  • relies on “voluntary” reports “from individual law enforcement agencies.”[236] [237]
  • determines crime statistics for agencies that don’t provide data to the FBI by using a “complex estimation process to account for unreported data.”[238] [239]

* Police departments in New York City and Philadelphia have falsified crime data to downplay the prevalence of violent crime.[240] [241] [242] [243] [244]

* The FBI warns that “data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data” from its annual crime reports because:

changes in police procedures, shifting attitudes toward crime and police, and other societal changes can affect the extent to which people report and law enforcement agencies record crime.[245]

Prevalence

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 222,795 robberies were committed in the U.S. during 2023. This equals one robbery for every 1,503 people.[246]

* As measured by the DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey, 731,620 robberies were committed in the U.S. during 2023, or 3.3 times the FBI estimate. This equals one robbery for every 389 people aged 12 and older.[247]

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, annual robbery rates have varied as follows since 1960:

Annual Robbery Rate Based on FBI Data

[248]


Justice System

* In 2023, law enforcement agencies reported that 28% of robberies resulted in an alleged offender being identified and acted upon by the criminal justice system.[249]

* A 2021 U.S. Justice Department study based on data from 2018 found that the median amount of time served in state prison for robbery was 3.2 years, and the average was 4.8 years.[250] [251]

Drugs & DUIs

Definitions

* The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program defines:

  • “drug abuse violations” as “the violation of laws prohibiting the production, distribution, and/or use of certain controlled substances.”
  • “driving under the influence” (DUI) as “operating a motor vehicle or common carrier while mentally or physically impaired as the result of consuming an alcoholic beverage or using a drug or narcotic.”[252]

* The DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey doesn’t define or measure the prevalence of any drug crimes or driving under the influence.[253] [254]


Data Accuracy

* The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report:

  • doesn’t count crimes that aren’t reported to the police.
  • relies on “voluntary” reports “from individual law enforcement agencies.”[255] [256]
  • determines crime statistics for agencies that don’t provide data to the FBI by using a “complex estimation process to account for unreported data.”[257] [258]

* The FBI warns that “data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data” from its annual crime reports because:

changes in police procedures, shifting attitudes toward crime and police, and other societal changes can affect the extent to which people report and law enforcement agencies record crime.[259]

Prevalence

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, during 2023:

  • 870,874 people were arrested for drug abuse violations.
  • 805,581 people were arrested for driving under the influence.[260]

* A scientific survey of U.S. residents aged 12 and older found that during 2023, over 70 million people had used illicit drugs, including marijuana,[261] which is illegal under federal law.[262] The survey also found that:

  • during 2023:
    • 24.9% of the population (aged 12 and older) had used illicit drugs.
    • 21.8% of the population (61.8 million people) had used marijuana.
    • 8.8% of the population (24.9 million people) had used illicit drugs other than marijuana.
    • 5.1% of the population (14.4 million people) had misused prescription psychotherapeutics, like pain relievers, stimulants, tranquilizers, sedatives, tranquilizers, and opioids.
    • 3.1% of the population (8.8 million people) had used hallucinogens like LSD, PCP, ecstasy, and inhalants.
    • 1.8% of the population (5.0 million people) had used cocaine.
    • 0.9% of the population (2.6 million people) had used methamphetamine.
    • 0.4% of the population (997,000 people) had used crack.
    • 0.2% of the population (660,000 people) had used heroin.
    • 0.2% of the population (627,000 people) had used illegally made fentanyl.[263]
  • over their lifetime:
    • 51.2% of the population (145 million people) had used illicit drugs.
    • 47.1% of the population (133.5 million people) had used marijuana.
    • 17.1% of the population (48.4 million people) had used hallucinogens like LSD, PCP, ecstasy, and inhalants.
    • 14.9% of the population (42.3 million people) had used cocaine.
    • 5.7 % of the population (16.1 million people) had used methamphetamine.
    • 3.5% of the population (9.9 million people) had used crack.
    • 2.2% of the population (6.2 million people) had used heroin.
    • 0.5% of the population (1.4 million people) had used illegally made fentanyl.[264]

* Based on 2018 survey data, a study published by the journal Injury Prevention found that 1.7% of U.S. adults admitted that they had driven during the past 30 days while they “perhaps” had “too much to drink.” Given the number of times each of them admitted to doing this over the prior 30 days, the study estimated that 4.0 million adults had driven 147 million times while impaired by alcohol in 2018.[265]

* Based on 2020 survey data, a study published by the journal Addictive Behaviors found that 10.3% of U.S. adults admitted to driving under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, or other drugs in 2020.[266]

* Based on 2020–2021 survey data of young U.S. drivers (ages 16–20 years), a study published by Addictive Behaviors found that:

  • 2.6% of the youth admitted to driving under the influence of alcohol.
  • 6.1% of admitted alcohol users admitted to driving under the influence of alcohol.
  • 6.3% of the youth admitted to driving under the influence of cannabis.
  • 24.5% of admitted cannabis users admitted to driving under the influence of cannabis.
  • “more than one million young drivers each year are placing their lives and those of others at risk by operating motor vehicles after consuming cannabis and/or alcohol.”[267]

* Since 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Protection have seized enough illegal drugs at the U.S./Mexico border to kill at least 9.4 billion people, or 28 times the entire population of the United States.[268]


Repercussions

* In the U.S. during 2023, roughly:

  • 105,007 people were killed by drug overdoses.[269]
  • 97,236 people were killed by accidental drug overdoses.[270]
  • 87,996 people were killed by illicit drug overdoses.[271]
  • 81,484 people were killed by accidental overdoses from illicit drugs.[272]

* From 1999 to 2023, the U.S. drug overdose death rate rose by 5.1 times:

Age-Adjusted U.S. Drug Overdose Death Rate

[273] [274] [275]

* If the illicit drug overdose death rate remains at the same level as in 2023, one in every 49 people in the U.S. will ultimately have their lives cut short by an illicit drug overdose.[276] The average age of people who die of drug overdoses is about 43 years.[277]

* A scientific, nationally representative survey commissioned in 2020 by Just Facts found that:

  • 21% of U.S. voters correctly estimated the average lifetime risk of dying from a drug overdose.
  • 40% of U.S. voters falsely believed that the average lifetime risk of dying from a drug overdose was about 1/10th of the actual risk.
  • 29% of U.S. voters falsely believed that the average lifetime risk of dying from a drug overdose was about 1/1,000th of the actual risk.[278] [279]

* In 2016, roughly 25,095 babies were born with a syndrome caused by their mothers using opioids. Infants born with this syndrome spend an average of 16 days in the hospital.[280] [281]

* In 2022, 13,524 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes in which the drivers had blood alcohol concentrations above the legal limit in all states. These deaths amounted to 32% of all traffic fatalities in 2022.[282]

* A study of seriously or fatally injured drivers conducted from 2019–2021 at seven trauma centers and four medical examiner offices across the nation found that:

  • among the 4,243 seriously injured drivers:
    • 54.4% tested positive for drugs “known or suspected to impair cognitive and motor skills important for driving safely.”
    • 25.0% tested positive for cannabis.
    • 21.6% tested positive for alcohol.
    • 9.8% tested positive for stimulants.
    • 8.6% tested positive for opioids.
    • 7.5% tested positive for sedatives.
    • 18.1% tested positive for two or more of the drugs above.
  • among the 555 dead drivers:
    • 68.8% tested positive for drugs “known or suspected to impair cognitive and motor skills important for driving safely.”
    • 38.9% tested positive for alcohol.
    • 31.7% tested positive for cannabis.
    • 13.0% tested positive for opioids.
    • 12.6% tested positive for stimulants.
    • 7.2% tested positive for sedatives.
    • 4.5% tested positive for over-the-counter drugs.
    • 33.9% tested positive for two or more of the drugs above.[283]

Justice System

* A 2021 DOJ study found that the median amount of time served in state prison for drug trafficking was 17 months, and the average time was 26 months.[284] [285]

* In 2018, a New Jersey judge sentenced a man to 7 years in prison as part of a plea deal for second-degree possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute. He had 31 pounds of fentanyl, enough to kill half the population of New Jersey.[286]

* In 2005, the journal Contemporary Drug Problems published a study of crimes committed by inmates who were serving time in federal and state correctional facilities during 1997. The study found that:

  • “prosecutors often accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge rather than pursuing conviction for the original charge in a time-consuming trial, so offenders arrested for drug distribution can easily end up being convicted for simple possession.”
  • roughly “0.5% to 3.6% of all prison inmates” were serving time “solely for their drug use.”
  • “among those in prison for drug use, almost 90% were involved with cocaine, heroin, and/or (meth)amphetamines….”
  • about 0.1%–0.2% of all prison inmates were serving time for possessing “only marijuana.”
  • people incarcerated solely for drug use served an average of less than 7 hours in prison for every $1,000 of drugs consumed.[287]

* In 2006, the journal Criminology & Public Policy published a study of crimes committed by inmates who were serving time for drug offenses in federal and state correctional facilities during 1997. The study found that:

  • “very few people appear to be in prison as first-time, nonviolent offenders simply because they used drugs.”
  • 102,467 inmates were convicted of simple drug possession, but the vast bulk of them had plea bargained down from more serious crimes, “possessed quantities beyond those associated with personal consumption, and/or self-reported some drug distribution role.”
  • 11,960 inmates is the “upper bound on the number of people in prison for drug-law violations because they were users,” amounting to “4.4% of drug offenders in state and federal prisons (and 1.0% of all prisoners).”
  • 1,409 inmates “were convicted for simple drug possession and did not enter a plea agreement or self-report a drug distribution role.”
  • “marijuana possessors who were not involved in drug distribution represent two-tenths of 1% of all drug prisoners and 0.06% of all prisoners.”[288]

* A 2021 U.S. Justice Department study of drug convicts released from state prisons in 2012 found that within five years of their release:

  • 69.8% were arrested again.
  • 62.0% were arrested for non-drug crimes.
  • 29.7% were arrested for property crimes.
  • 22.6% were arrested for violent crimes.
  • 7.5% were arrested for fraud/forgery.[289]

Property Crime

Definitions

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, “property crime” consists of:

  • burglary, “the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft,” including “attempted forcible entry.”
  • larceny-theft, “the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from” others, such as stealing bicycles, shoplifting, and pocket-picking, including attempted theft but excluding motor vehicle theft.
  • motor vehicle theft, including attempts to do so and excluding boats, construction equipment, airplanes, farming equipment, and vehicle parts.[290]

* As measured by the DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey, “property crime” excludes all commercial crimes and consists of:

  • burglary, the “unlawful or forcible entry or attempted entry” of structures to commit a theft, including attempts to do so.
  • trespassing, the “unlawful or forcible entry or attempted entry” of structures for purposes other than to commit a theft, excluding trespassing on land.
  • motor vehicle theft, including attempts to do so and excluding vehicle parts.
  • other types of household theft, the “unlawful taking or attempted unlawful taking of property or cash without personal contact with the victim,” including attempts to do so.[291] [292] [293]

* Though not included in the FBI’s tally of property crimes, the FBI measures the number of arrests for:

  • arson, the “willful or malicious burning” of a “dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another, etc.,” including attempts to do so.
  • stolen property, the “buying, receiving, possessing, selling, concealing, or transporting” of “any property with the knowledge that it has been unlawfully taken, as by burglary, embezzlement, fraud, larceny, robbery, etc.,” including attempts to do so.
  • vandalism, the willful or malicious destruction, disfigurement, or defacing of “any public or private property” without the “consent of the owner,” including attempts to do so.[294]

Data Accuracy

* The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report:

  • doesn’t count crimes that aren’t reported to the police.
  • relies on “voluntary” reports “from individual law enforcement agencies.”[295] [296]
  • determines crime statistics for agencies that don’t provide data to the FBI by using a “complex estimation process to account for unreported data.”[297] [298]

* The FBI warns that “data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data” from its annual crime reports because:

changes in police procedures, shifting attitudes toward crime and police, and other societal changes can affect the extent to which people report and law enforcement agencies record crime.[299]

Prevalence

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 6,419,149 property crimes were committed in the U.S. during 2023, or one property crime for every 52 people.[300] This includes:

  • 839,563 burglaries
  • 4,512,064 larceny-thefts
  • 1,067,522 motor vehicle thefts.[301]

* As measured by the DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey, 13,637,450 property crimes were committed in the U.S. during 2023, or 2.1 times the FBI estimate and one property crime for every 10 households.[302] This includes:

  • 1,202,830 burglaries.
  • 544,140 trespassings.
  • 808,830 motor vehicle thefts.
  • 11,081,650 other thefts.[303] [304]

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, during 2023:

  • 35,809 arsons were committed, and 8,958 people were arrested for arson.
  • 81,127 people were arrested for buying, receiving, or possessing stolen property.
  • 170,467 people were arrested for vandalism.[305]

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, property crime rates have varied as follows since 1960:

Property Crime Rate Based on FBI Data

[306]


Justice System

* In 2023, law enforcement agencies reported that 14% percent of property crimes, 14% of burglaries, 15% of larceny-thefts, 8% of motor vehicle thefts, and 27% of arsons reported to police resulted in an alleged offender being identified and acted upon by the criminal justice system.[307]

* A 2021 U.S. Justice Department study found that the median amount of time served in state prison for:

  • burglary was 17 months, and the average was 27 months.
  • larceny-theft was 11 months, and the average was 17 months.
  • motor-vehicle theft was 11 months, and the average was 15 months.
  • other property crimes was 12 months, and the average was 20 months.[308] [309]

White-Collar Crime

Definitions

* As defined by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, “white-collar crimes” consist of “illegal acts which are characterized by deceit, concealment, or violation of trust and which are not dependent upon the application or threat of physical force or violence.”[310]

* The DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey doesn’t define or measure the prevalence of any white-collar crimes.[311] [312] [313]

* The FBI measures arrests for three general categories of white-collar crime:

  1. Forgery and counterfeiting, the “altering, copying, or imitation of something, without authority or right, with the intent to deceive or defraud” or the “selling, buying, or possession” of such items.
  2. Fraud, the “intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another person” to “part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.”
  3. Embezzlement, the “unlawful misappropriation” of “money, property, or some other thing of value entrusted” to the care of someone.[314] [315]

* White collar crime include dozens of different offenses, such as:

  • bribery.
  • credit card fraud.
  • identity theft.
  • employee theft.
  • welfare fraud.
  • cyberattacks.
  • insider trading.
  • securities fraud.
  • wire fraud.
  • tax fraud.
  • insurance fraud.
  • money laundering.
  • unnecessary repairs.
  • telemarketing scams.
  • writing bad checks.
  • jury tampering.
  • environmental crimes.
  • health care fraud.
  • vote fraud.
  • false advertising.
  • intellectual property theft.[316] [317] [318] [319] [320]

Data Accuracy

* Per The Oxford Handbook of White-Collar Crime:

  • “The statistics reported by law-enforcement agencies” on white-collar crime are “limited” because “so few offenses are reported to law enforcement.”
  • “Only a small proportion of offenses is prosecuted, making conviction figures unreliable.”
  • “The costs of white-collar crime are notoriously difficult to quantify because victims often do not know they have been subject to a criminal offense.”[321]

* Per a 2002 report by the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division:

  • “There is no way currently to distinguish among all” the “different types” of white-collar crimes.
  • “Many victims are unaware that they have been deceived or are too ashamed to report the offense.”
  • Corporations “tend not to report white-collar crime perpetrated against themselves because it may negatively affect the reputation of the company.”
  • FBI “statistics can provide only a limited amount of information on a limited number of offenses.”
  • “The true extent and expense of white-collar crime are unknown.”[322]

Prevalence

* As measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, during 2023:

  • 35,995 people were arrested for forgery or counterfeiting.
  • 80,020 people were arrested for fraud.
  • 9,976 people were arrested for embezzlement.[323]

* A 2010 national survey commissioned by the National White Collar Crime Center found that:

  • 17% of individuals in the U.S. reported being the victim of a white collar-crime over the prior year, with an average of 1.3 victimizations per person.
  • 24% of U.S. households reported being the victim of a white collar-crime over the prior year, with an average of 1.4 victimizations per household.
  • 55% of these crimes “were reported to at least one external recipient or agency,” like a credit card company or the police.
  • 12% of these crimes “were reported to law enforcement or some other crime control agency.”
  • “no survey that attempts to provide a measure of crime can do so with complete accuracy.”
  • “the true rate” white collar crimes “is likely to be higher” than the survey indicates.[324]

Repercussions

* In 2016, The Oxford Handbook of White-Collar Crime estimated that victims of white-collar offenses in the U.S. lose $1.6 trillion per year to these crimes,[325] or 8.5% of the U.S. economy.[326] These figures exclude:

  • “many costly crimes” that “are not included in these estimates.”
  • “costly actions to avoid and prevent becoming victims of white-collar crime.”
  • “costly actions” that people take to “avoid becoming charged with a crime.”
  • the costs of “physical or psychological harm to people.”
  • the costs of environmental damage.
  • the costs to the criminal justice system.
  • the “serious harm to public confidence in political and/or economic institutions.”[327]

* A 2021 paper in the Journal of Law and Economics estimated that victims of white-collar offenses in the U.S. lose $1.9 trillion per year to the following crimes,[328] or 8.0% of the U.S. economy:[329]

  • $1.08 trillion to occupational fraud.
  • $4.0 billion to internet fraud.
  • $110.9 billion to health insurance fraud.
  • $44.9 billion to other types of insurance fraud.
  • $17.0 billion to identity fraud.
  • $3.4 billion to retail vendor fraud.
  • $27.2 billion to return fraud.
  • $497 million to telephone fraud.
  • $51 million to mail fraud.
  • $450 million to coupon fraud.
  • $578 billion to unpaid taxes, which impose an effective tax on most taxpayers “to subsidize noncompliance by others.”[330] [331]

* The above figures from the 2021 study only include “victims’ losses” and exclude the:

  • “direct costs of law enforcement” and “criminal justice.”
  • “indirect costs of private deterrence, fear and agony, and time lost to avoidance and recovery.”[332]

* With the caveat that association does not prove causation:[333]

  • a systematic review of 115 corruption studies by the EPPI-Centre at the University of London found that “corruption has negative and statistically significant effects on [economic] growth—directly and indirectly.”[334] [335]
  • government corruption scores of 170 countries by Transparency International show that more corruption is generally associated with lower standards of living:[336]
GDP Per Person and Public-Sector Transparency & Accountability

[337] [338] [339] [340]

Death Penalty

* Extensive facts on the death penalty are available in Just Facts’ core research on the Death Penalty.

Immigration

* Extensive facts on immigration and crime are available in Just Facts’ core research on Immigration.

Race

* Extensive facts on race and crime are available in Just Facts’ core research on Racial Issues.

Government Obligations

Overview

* On July 4, 1776, the American colonies adopted a Declaration of Independence stating that “governments are instituted” to “secure” people’s God-given “rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”[341] [342] [343]

* James Madison—the primary author of the Bill of Rights and the “Father” of the Constitution:[344] [345]

  • stated at the Constitutional Convention that the new government they were forming must provide “more effectually for the security of private rights and the steady dispensation of Justice.”[346]
  • wrote in the Federalist Papers that “the first object of government” is the “protection” of the “faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate.”[347]

* In the 1911 case of Chicago v. Sturges, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled:

Primarily, governments exist for the maintenance of social order. Hence it is that the obligation of the government to protect life, liberty, and property against the conduct of the indifferent, the careless, and the evil-minded may be regarded as lying at the very foundation of the social compact.[348]

* In 1939, the American Bar Association published a brief detailing the responsibility of government when citizens’ rights are violently threatened by private individuals or mobs:

The only proper remedy for such a situation, small or serious, is the police protection to which citizens are entitled, whether they are singly or in groups.[349]

* In 1948, the Indiana Law Journal published a paper stating:

The right to engage in lawful conduct and to be protected therein against the lawless is the fundamental reason for the existence of organized government. The protection of the right, therefore, is equally vital to government regardless of the benefits which its exercise may or may not confer, for if the right is not protected, government has failed in its basic function.[350]

14th Amendment

* The framers of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights left most of the responsibility to protect people’s rights to the states, who were unwilling to join the union unless they kept a large degree of independence.[351] [352] [353] [354] [355]

* Some states refused to protect or recognize the rights of black people and thus permitted slavery,[356] while others abolished it.[357] In the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (7–2) that black people were not “people of the United States” and “not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”[358]

* In 1868—three years after the Civil War ended and slavery was banned by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution—a bloc of Congressmen called the “Radical Republicans” fought for and secured passage of the 14th Amendment.”[359] [360] [361] [362] Among other provisions, this amendment prohibits states from depriving “any person” of:

  • “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….”
  • “the equal protection of the laws.”[363]

* Congressman John Bingham (R–OH), who drafted the provisions above,[364] [365] repeatedly stated that they will require state governments to provide “equal protection” to every person’s “life, liberty, and property.”[366]

* Seven years after the passage of the 14th Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5 to 4) in the case of United States v. Cruikshank that the neither 14th Amendment, nor any other part of the U.S. Constitution, requires state governments to respect or protect any of people’s Constitutional rights, such as life, liberty, or property.[367] [368]

* The 1875 Cruikshank ruling empowered groups like the Ku Klux Klan to murder, intimidate, and subjugate black people and their white Republican supporters for decades.[369] [370] [371] [372] [373] [374] [375] [376] [377] As this occurred, elected Democrats and their allied newspapers ignored, downplayed, and denied these events.[378] [379] [380] [381] [382] [383]

* Over the course of more than a century since Cruikshank, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued decisions that require state governments to respect and protect most of the rights in the Bill of Rights but not all of them. Under these rulings, states must observe rights that the Supreme Court deems to be “fundamental” to the American “scheme of ordered liberty.” These include but are not limited to life, liberty, property, and equal protection of the laws.[384] [385]


Local

* The Constitutional obligations of states to protect people’s rights also apply to local governments, which are agents of the states.[386] [387]

* Most law enforcement occurs at the local level.[388]


Claims v. Realties

* Writing at Guns.com, Scott Unzicker claimed that a 1981 court ruling in the case of Warren v. District of Columbia proves that “police have no legal obligation to ‘protect and serve’ the population.”[389]

* In Warren v. District of Columbia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed (4–3) a lawsuit against the District of Columbia for failing to protect three women from two men who beat and raped them for 14 hours after they called the police for help. Per the ruling:

  • “Although recognizing the obligation of public employees to perform their duties fully and adequately, the law properly does not permit that obligation to be enforced in a private suit for money damages.”
  • “The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.”
  • “Dereliction in the performance of police duties may, therefore, be redressed only in the context of a public prosecution and not in a private suit for money damages.”[390]

* In the 1911 case of Chicago v. Sturges, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that people can sue governments for a failure to provide police protection if states pass laws that allow for such lawsuits.[391]


* Writing in The Nation, P.E. Moskowitz claimed that “nothing in the First Amendment prevents citizens (members of antifa or otherwise) from interrupting someone’s protest. Nor does it guarantee police protection for white nationalists. It only limits the ability of Congress from passing laws that interfere with speech.”

* In combination with the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment requires all branches and levels of government to equally protect the Constitutional rights of all people, including their right the free speech, right to life, and other individual rights specified in the Constitution.[392] [393] [394] [395]


* Citing the Supreme Court’s 1989 ruling in DeShaney v. Winnebago, Ryan McMaken of the Mises Institute claimed that “police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others—even when a threat is apparent.”[396]

* In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed (6–3) a lawsuit against Winnebago County, Wisconsin for failing to protect a boy named Joshua DeShaney who suffered severe permanent brain damage from a beating by his father. This occurred after government authorities repeatedly saw physical signs of child abuse on the boy. Per the ruling:

  • “The complaint alleged that respondents had deprived Joshua of his liberty without due process of law, in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, by failing to intervene to protect him against a risk of violence at his father’s hands of which they knew or should have known.”
  • “But nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security.”
  • “The State may not, of course, selectively deny its protective services to certain disfavored minorities without violating the Equal Protection Clause. … But no such argument has been made here.”[397]

* During congressional debates over the 14th Amendment, the Congressman who drafted the above-referenced provisions had the following exchange with an opponent of them:

  • The opponent asked the drafter if the amendment gives Congress powers to protect people’s “life, liberty, and personal property.”
  • The drafter replied that it “certainly does” and added that “it confers upon Congress power to see to it that the protection given by the laws of the States shall be equal in respect to life and liberty and property to all persons.”
  • The opponent then asked what part of the Amendment contains this provision, and the drafter answered, “The words ‘equal protection’ contain it, and nothing else.”[398] [399] [400]

* In the 1921 case of Truax v. Corrigan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (4–3) that the “provision of the Fourteenth Amendment which forbids any state to deny to any person the equal protection of the laws”:

tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for every one’s right of life, liberty, and property, which the Congress or the Legislature may not withhold.[401]

Overcriminalization & Undercriminalization

Proliferation of Laws

* James Madison—who authored the Bill of Rights and become known as the “Father of the Constitution” for his central role in its formation—wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood….[402] [403] [404]

* According to recent estimates:

  • federal laws specify about 5,199 crimes.[405]
  • federal regulations specify a multiplicatively larger and unknown number of crimes.[406]
  • state and local laws and regulations specify an unknown number of crimes.[407]

Prosecutorial Discretion

* As defined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “prosecutorial discretion” is the “authority of a law enforcement agency to decide where to focus its resources and whether or how to enforce the law against an individual.”[408]

* Per a 1999 paper in the Fordham Urban Law Journal:

Prosecutorial discretion encompasses the power to charge or to refrain from charging an individual with a crime; to reduce charges to a lesser offense prior to trial; to not charge prior offenses; to dismiss or request court dismissal after a trial commences; or to recommend a lesser sentence.[409]

* Per a 2010 paper in the Washington and Lee Law Review:

American prosecutors exercise almost limitless discretion in a series of decisions affecting individuals embroiled in the criminal justice system. They decide whether to accept or decline a case, and on occasion, whether an individual should be arrested in the first place; they select what crimes should be charged and the number of counts; they choose whether to engage in plea negotiations and the terms of an acceptable agreement; they determine all aspects of pretrial and trial strategy; and in many cases, they essentially decide the punishment that will be imposed upon conviction. These and other discretionary judgments are often made without meaningful internal and external review or any effective opposition.[410]

* When President Joe Biden issued a “full and unconditional pardon” to Dr. Anthony Fauci “for any offenses against the United States which he may have committed or taken part in” since 2014,[411] Biden alleged:

Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong—and in fact have done the right thing—and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.[412]

* Examples of prosecutorial discretion include the following:

  • The Biden administration DOJ prosecuted more than a hundred J6 protestors for “obstructing an official proceeding,”[413] [414] a provision of federal law that was created to criminalize the destruction of evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6–3) that the DOJ’s prosecutions were illegal and wrongly gave “prosecutors broad discretion to seek a 20-year maximum sentence for acts Congress saw fit to punish with far shorter sentences.”[415]
  • Bronx, NY district attorney Robert Johnson refused to pursue the death penalty because of his ideological opposition to it.[416]
  • Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg campaigned for office while declaring that the “most important” thing he could do was hold Donald Trump “accountable” for “lawlessness.”[417] Once elected, Bragg prosecuted Trump for a type of crime never before charged in the history of the nation.[418]
  • On his first day in office, Bragg wrote that he “will not prosecute” a range of crimes like trespassing, “refusing to pay the fare for public transportation,” prostitution, driving without a license, or “resisting arrest” for any of the crimes he specified.[419]
  • The presidential administrations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden issued multiple orders that banned federal officials from enforcing immigration laws against entire classes of illegal immigrants.[420] [421] [422] [423] [424] [425] [426] [427] [428] [429]

Societal Costs

* A 2021 paper in the Journal of Law and Economics estimated that crime costs the people of the United States about $4.71–$5.78 trillion per year, including:

  • “victims’ losses,”
  • “the direct costs of law enforcement,”
  • the costs of courts, prisons, and rehabilitation programs,
  • “the indirect costs of private deterrence,”
  • the indirect costs of “fear and agony,” and
  • the “time lost to avoidance and recovery.”[430]

* Those societal costs of crime amount to 20% to 24% of the U.S. economy, or gross domestic product.[431]

* Per the 2021 paper:

Crime exacts a toll on society far greater than its direct repercussions. An environment of crime and concomitant distrust prompts expenditures on prevention, recovery, justice, and corrections. Beyond asset transfers from victim to criminal, losses to crime comprise lives, health, fear, work, human capital, and time.[432]

Government Spending

* Government spending on public order and safety funds the police, fire protection, law courts, prisons, and immigration enforcement.[433] [434]


Federal, State & Local

* In 2023, U.S. federal, state, and local governments spent $505 billion on public order and safety.[435] This amounts to:

  • 5% of all government current expenditures.
  • $1,499 for every person living in the U.S.
  • $3,841 for every household in the U.S.
  • 1.8% of the U.S. economy, or gross domestic product.[436]

* In 2023, federal, state, and local government spending on public order and safety were comprised of:

Federal, State & Local Government Spending on Public Order & Safety

[437]

* From 1959 to 2023, spending on public order and safety increased from 3% of all federal, state, and local outlays to 7%, then decreased to 5%:

Federal, State & Local Government Spending on Public Order & Safety

[438] [439] [440]


Federal

* In 2023, the U.S. federal government spent $79 billion on public order and safety.[441] This amounts to:

  • 1% of all federal government current expenditures.
  • $235 for every person living in the U.S.
  • $602 for every household in the U.S.
  • 0.3% of the U.S. economy or gross domestic product.[442]

* In 2023, federal government spending on public order and safety was comprised of:

Federal Government Spending on Public Order & Safety

[443]

* From 1959 to 2023, spending on public order and safety increased from 0.3% of all federal outlays to 1.6%, then decreased to 1.2%:

Federal Government Spending on Public Order & Safety

[444] [445] [446]


State & Local

* Excluding federal grants (which are counted under federal spending), in 2023 U.S. state and local governments spent $426 billion on public order and safety.[447] This amounts to:

  • 15% of all state and local government current expenditures.
  • $1,264 for every person living in the U.S.
  • $3,240 for every household in the U.S.
  • 1.5% of the U.S. economy or gross domestic product.[448]

* From 1959 to 2023, spending on public order and safety (excluding federal grants) increased from 11% of all state and local outlays to 15%:

State & Local Government Spending on Public Order & Safety

[449] [450] [451]

Footnotes

[1] Calculated with data from the paper: “The Aggregate Cost of Crime in the United States.” By David A. Anderson. Journal of Law and Economics, November 2021. <www.journals.uchicago.edu>

It should be clear that all counts of crimes and their costs are vulnerable to missing data. The values in the present study should not give the appearance of accuracy. Survey data were used when possible to capture some of the crimes not reported to police, but some estimates are based on reported crimes.

[2] Paper: “Estimating Intruder-Related Firearm Retrievals in U.S. Households, 1994.” By Robin M. Ikeda (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and others. Violence and Victims, Winter 1997. Pages 363–372. <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>

Page 370:

Obtaining information on the protective use of firearms in an efficient and unbiased manner is difficult. These data can be collected through official records, such as police reports, or through special studies. Police reports are more likely to include events with untoward outcomes. Cross-sectional surveys may also be subject to reporting biases and may not yield a sufficient number of episodes to analyze because these events are rare. Nevertheless, surveys are likely to be the most common investigatory tool because of their simplicity and apparent straightforwardness.

[3] Book: Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. By the Committee to Improve Research and Data on Firearms and the Committee on Law and Justice, National Research Council of the National Academies. Edited by Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie. National Academies Press, 2005.

Page 21: “The National Crime Victimization Survey … is widely viewed as a “gold standard for measuring crime victimization.”

Page 30: “Although the NCVS data do many things right, they are, like any such system, beset with methodological problems of surveys in general as well as particular problems associated with measuring illicit, deviant, and deleterious activities….”

Page 35:

While surveys of firearms acquisitions, possession, and use are of varying quality and scope, they all share common methodological and survey sampling-related problems. The most fundamental of these is the potential for response errors to survey questionnaires. Critics argue that asking people whether they own a firearm, what kind it is, and how it is used may lead to invalid responses because ownership is a controversial matter for one or more reasons: some people may own a firearm illegally, some may own it legally but worry that they may use it illegally, and some may react to the intense public controversy about firearm ownership by becoming less (or even more) likely to admit to ownership (Blackman, 2003).7

7 While in most surveys respondents are provided confidentiality, the concern is still expressed that violations of confidentiality directly or through data mining could lead to the identification of specific respondents in a way that might allow the identification of firearms owners.

[4] Webpage: “UCR Publications.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed November, 1, 2022 at <bit.ly>

Crime in the United States

An annual publication for more than eight decades, the Crime in the United States report contains a compilation of the volume and rate of violent and property crime offenses for the nation and by state using Summary Reporting System data and summarized data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Data at the level of local law enforcement agencies are also provided for those contributors supplying 12 months of complete offense data. This report includes arrests, clearances, trends, and law enforcement employee data.

[5] The tabs of this spreadsheet contains citations with URLs for all of the Crime in the United States reports for 1995 to 2023. All but one of them were published in the fall with data from the prior year.

[6] Webpage: “Crime in the U.S.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed January 2, 2025 at <ucr.fbi.gov>

NOTE: This webpage contains permalinks to all of the Crime in the United States reports from 1995 to 2019. The 2019 report was published in the fall of 2020 and is documented in the next footnote.

[7] Report: “2019 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2020. <ucr.fbi.gov>

Topic: “Murder.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1993–2012” <ucr.fbi.gov>

[8] Webpage: “Past Inaugural Ceremonies.” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Accessed August 19, 2024 at <www.inaugural.senate.gov>

“President Joseph R. Biden and Vice President Kamala D. Harris … January 20, 2021”

[9] Article: “As Murders Soar, FBI Buries the Data.” By James D. Agresti. Just Facts, November 4, 2022. <www.justfactsdaily.com>

[NOTE: Many of the hyperlinks below are now dead due to the FBI changing or deleting them.]

Every year for more than eight decades, the FBI has published a report titled “Crime in the United States” which contains national crime estimates for the previous year. Before 2021, the FBI published this report with a simple overview page containing links like “Violent Crime,” “Property Crime,” and “Homicide.” These led to webpages with clear summaries and straightforward datasets for such crimes.

Since 2021, the FBI has published those reports only via a “Crime Data Explorer” which contains a maze of vaguely worded links, drop down menus, and acronyms. To locate the FBI’s estimate of murders for 2021 with this system, readers must:

• go to the Crime Data Explorer home page and scroll past three prominent links named “Crime Data Explorer,” “Law Enforcement Explorer,” and “Documents and Downloads” which lead to webpages with scores of menus and files that don’t contain the data.

• scroll to a section of the webpage titled “Explore by Location and Dataset: State participation depicts current year.”

• click on a dropdown menu under a header named “Dataset” and select the menu item that says “NIBRS Estimation Data,” which leads to another webpage.

• scroll to a section of the webpage called “NIBRS Estimation Viewer” and read the report that contains the data via a file viewer that sometimes fails to display the report or click on a link that says “Download NIBRS Trend Analysis Report.” [5/22/23: The FBI has now removed the report from this location, so Just Facts has posted it here.]

Nevertheless, the FBI claims that its Crime Data Explorer enables “law enforcement and the general public to more easily use and understand the massive amounts” of crime data it collects. Belying that statement, Google shows that only five news outlets have reported the fact that the FBI’s 2021 estimate for murders ranges from 21,300 to 24,600. Moreover, two of the outlets obtained these figures from two of the other outlets, not from the FBI. The sole place where the FBI reveals these figures is in the above-mentioned buried report.

[10] Calculated with data from:

a) Article: “Violent Crime Is a Major Focus of GOP; Is It Really Rising?” By J.J. Bullock. NewsNation, October 20, 2022. Updated November 10, 2022. <www.newsnationnow.com>

“Crime did rise in the United States in 2020 while the coronavirus pandemic raged. In 2020, there were 17,815 homicides in the United States, according to FBI data. In 2021, that number fell to 14,677, returning to pre-pandemic levels that saw 14,548 homicides in 2019 and 14,594 in 2018.”

b) Report: “The Transition to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS): A Comparison of 2020 and 2021 NIBRS Estimates.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2022. <www.justfacts.com>

“ The number of murders increased from 22,000 in 2020 to 22,900 in 2021. This constitutes an increase of 4.3% on top of the 29.4% increase in 2020.”

CALCULATION: 22,900 – 14,677 = 8,223

[11] Article: “As Murders Soar, FBI Buries the Data.” By James D. Agresti. Just Facts, November 4, 2022. <www.justfactsdaily.com>

[NOTE: Some of the hyperlinks below are now dead due to the FBI changing or deleting them.]

So where did NewsNation obtain the much lower figure of 14,677 murders in 2021? From an easy-to-access webpage on the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer. Specifically, NewsNation linked to a page that can be accessed by clicking the first prominent link on the home page of the Crime Data Explorer and then clicking on “Expanded Homicide Data.” This leads to a webpage with a chart showing 14,677 murders in 2021, a large decline from 2020, just as NewsNation reported:

-------------

The FBI’s webpage contains two notes above the chart indicating that it shows incomplete data, but these caveats may not have been direct enough for NewsNation to fully grasp them:

• “In 2021, the FBI expanded homicide crime statistics for the nation are based on 11,794 of 18,806 law enforcement agencies in the country that year who elected to submit an expanded homicide report.”

• “2021 Expanded Homicide Data includes fewer homicides due to an overall decrease in participation from agencies that are not yet reporting via NIBRS.”

The fact that this incomplete data can be accessed so easily may have also led NewsNation to assume it was complete.

[12] To create a permalink to any page of the FBI documents posted by Just Facts, append the following text to the URL while replacing “XX” with the page number of the document:

#page=XX

* For example, the following URL leads to the 99th page of the 2023 report and datasets:

https://www.justfacts.com/document/crime_united_states_2023_fbi.pdf#page=99

[13] Entry: “homicide.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th edition). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2016. <www.thefreedictionary.com>

1. The killing of one person by another, regardless of intention or legality.

2. A person who kills another person.

[14] Article: “Second Degree Murder.” Wex Legal Encyclopedia. Accessed November 29, 2024 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

Both first-degree murder and second-degree murder are intentional homicide crimes. First-degree murder is the most serious charge—a deliberated and premeditated murder. Deliberation and premeditation are the main elements that distinguish it from second-degree murder, reflecting the defendant’s intention to plan for killing someone.

[15] Article: “Teen Gets 50 Years in MS-13 Killing of 14-Year-Old Maryland Girl.” By Jack Moore. WTOP News (107.7 FM, Washington, D.C.), January 13, 2020. <wtop.com>

A 17-year-old, who pleaded guilty to the brutal gang-linked slaying of a 14-year-old Maryland girl last spring, has been sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Josue Fuentes-Ponce, who was 16 at the time of the killing, had pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and participating in a gang.

He was one of four teens who authorities said drove Ariana Funes-Diaz to a wooded area in Riverdale, Maryland, in April and attacked her with a baseball bat and a machete. Her body was discovered near a creek a month later.

Police said the teens, who were members of the MS-13 street gang, were worried Funes-Diaz would rat them out for an earlier gang-related kidnapping and robbery in D.C. …

One of the other teens charged in the slaying, 18-year-old Joel Escobar, pleaded guilty in November and is due to be sentenced Feb. 26.

[16] Article: “ICE Previously Sought to Detain 2 Suspects in Homicide of Maryland Girl.” By Matthew Stabley. NBC Washington, May 21, 2019. Updated May 23, 2019. <www.nbcwashington.com>

Two teenagers charged in the death of a 14-year-old Maryland girl were arrested by Prince George’s County police in another case last year and should have been detained, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Salvadorans Josue Fuentes-Ponce, 16, and Joel Escobar, 17, were in the country illegally when they were arrested May 11, 2018, on several charges, including attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder and participation in gang activity, ICE said. They were released on an unknown date despite an ICE detainer, according to ICE. …

Fuentes-Ponce, Escobar and 14-year-old Cynthia Hernandez-Nucamendi were arrested last week and charged with first-degree murder and related charges in the death of 14-year-old Ariana Funes-Diaz, of Adelphi, whose body was found May 15 in a creek in the 6300 block of 64th Avenue in Riverdale.

The suspects were fearful Funes-Diaz would go to the police about a robbery all four of them allegedly committed in D.C. on April 17, police said.

[17] Article: “The Felony Murder Rule in Criminal Law.” Justia. Last reviewed October 2024. <www.justia.com>

The felony murder rule is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first-degree murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if the defendant is not the killer. The felony murder rule applies only to those crimes that are considered “inherently dangerous,” as the rationale underlying the felony murder rule is that certain crimes are so dangerous that society wants to deter individuals from engaging in them altogether. …

Almost every state in the United States has a felony murder rule, and federal law recognizes the felony murder rule, as well. In most states, felony murder is categorized as a first-degree murder and can result in sentencing from several years to a life imprisonment.

[18] Book: Criminal Investigation. By Kären M. Hess, Christine Hess Orthmann, and Henry Lim Cho. Cengage Learning, 2016.

Page 274: “Second-degree murder includes the intent to cause death, but not premeditation. An example is a violent argument that ends in one person spontaneously killing the other.”

[19] Article: “Second Degree Murder.” Wex Legal Encyclopedia. Accessed November 29, 2024 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

Both first-degree murder and second-degree murder are intentional homicide crimes. First-degree murder is the most serious charge—a deliberated and premeditated murder. Deliberation and premeditation are the main elements that distinguish it from second-degree murder, reflecting the defendant’s intention to plan for killing someone. …

Second-degree murder is typically murder with malicious intent but not premeditated. …

Killing a victim in a drunken rage is second-degree murder, as voluntary intoxication cannot reduce malice crime of murder down to manslaughter.

[20] Article: “Teen Convicted of Killing Tessa Majors in a New York City Park Is Sentenced to 14 Years to Life.” By Sonia Moghe and Holly Yan. CNN, January 19, 2022. <www.cnn.com>

A teen who pleaded guilty to killing Barnard College freshman Tessa Majors was sentenced to 14 years to life on Wednesday. …

… Rashaun Weaver, who was 14 when Majors was killed, was sentenced. …

Weaver pleaded guilty in December to murder in the second degree, telling the court he “intentionally caused the death of Tessa Majors by stabbing her with a knife.” …

Prosecutors said the teens targeted Majors—who was a musician and aspiring journalist—because of her iPhone and that she fought back. Her family said in its statement that it believes Majors fought to keep her phone because it contained songs she’d written that were not stored anywhere else. …

Another teen in the case, Luchiano Lewis was 14 at the time of the murder but was charged as an adult. He pleaded guilty to murder and robbery charges and was sentenced in October to nine years to life in prison.

In 2020, an unnamed teen who was not charged as an adult pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and was sentenced to 18 months in the custody of the Administration for Children’s Services.

[21] Article: “Teen Sentenced to 9 Years to Life for Murder of Tessa Majors as Her Dad Breaks Down in Court.” By Rebecca Rosenberg and Elizabeth Rosner. New York Post, October 14, 2021. <nypost.com>

But that all ended when the college freshman was preyed upon by Luchiano Lewis, now 16, and his friends.

Lewis and two middle school pals—Rashaun Weaver, then 14, and Zyairr Davis, then 13—stabbed Majors, 18, to death during the botched robbery in Morningside Park. …

During the attack, Tess fought back, calling Lewis a “coward” and getting Weaver’s DNA under her fingernails, according to court papers. …

Weaver was the first to attack the college freshman after she passed the trio while staring down at her phone. He ran up behind her and kicked her hard in the back. A tussle ensued and Majors bit Weaver, then yelled for help.

That’s when Lewis allegedly held her in a headlock, and Weaver repeatedly stabbed her, piercing her heart, and sending the feathers of her down coat into the air.

Lewis pleaded guilty last month to second-degree murder and first-degree robbery.

[22] Book: Criminal Investigation. By Kären M. Hess, Christine Hess Orthmann, and Henry Lim Cho. Cengage Learning, 2016.

Page 274:

Third-degree murder involves neither premeditation nor intent. It results from an act that is imminently dangerous to others and shows a disregard for human life, such as shooting into a room where people are likely to be present or playing a practical joke that may result in someone’s death.

[23] Article: “Third Degree Murder Overview.” By Samuel Strom. FindLaw. Last reviewed January 30, 2024. <www.findlaw.com>

The difference between third-degree murder and manslaughter often depends on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the killing.

In Minnesota, for example, a court may convict someone of manslaughter in the second degree if the person knew they were unreasonably risking someone else’s life and took that chance. This is different from third-degree murder, where the person must act with a depraved mind and malice, which is a wanton disregard for human life.

[24] Article: “Woman Convicted of Third-Degree Murder in Drag Race Deaths.” By John Gessner. Sun Thisweek (Minnesota), December 15, 2022. <www.hometownsource.com>

A Burnsville woman who was drag racing against her brother on County Road 42 in Burnsville when his car T-boned another, killing two people, was convicted Wednesday of third-degree murder.

A Dakota County jury deliberated for about seven hours before convicting Camille Dennis-Bond, 20, of two counts of third-degree murder, two counts of criminal vehicular homicide, one count of criminal vehicular operation resulting in great bodily harm and one count of careless driving. …

“The deaths of Tayler Garza and Dalton Ford were due to the extremely reckless behavior of Camille Dennis-Bond and Leon Bond engaging in the inherently dangerous act of drag racing,” Keena said in her statement. …

The victims were turning left onto Newton Avenue in a Honda CR-V when it was struck by the Chrysler 200 Leon Bond was driving at 93 to 100 mph, authorities said. A witness said the Honda “basically turned into powder and split in half.”

[25] Article: “Third Degree Murder Overview.” By Samuel Strom. FindLaw. Last reviewed January 30, 2024. <www.findlaw.com>

“Only three states have third-degree murder laws: Minnesota, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Each of these states has a different definition of third-degree murder, as explained in the chart below.”

[26] Book: Criminal Investigation. By Kären M. Hess, Christine Hess Orthmann, and Henry Lim Cho. Cengage Learning, 2016.

Page 274:

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another person with no prior malice. It may be voluntary or involuntary. …

Involuntary manslaughter is accidental homicide that results from extreme (culpable) negligence. Examples of involuntary manslaughter include handling a firearm negligently; leaving poison where children may take it; and operating an automobile, boat, or aircraft in a criminally negligent manner. Some states, such as California, have a third category of manslaughter: manslaughter with a motor vehicle.

[27] Webpage: “All Terms & Definitions.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed December 3, 2019. <bit.ly>

Nonnegligent/voluntary manslaughter

Intentionally and without legal justification causing the death of another when acting under extreme provocation. The combined category of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter excludes involuntary or negligent manslaughter, conspiracies to commit murder, solicitation of murder, and attempted murder.

[28] Ruling: Henderson v. The State. Georgia Court of Appeals, October 20, 1975. <casetext.com>

Majority:

The defendant Mattie Lou Henderson, her husband, one Catherine Thomas and Thomas’ daughter, with others engaged in a party in which much liquor was consumed. The defendant returned home, her husband did not. She eventually found him in Catherine Thomas’ bed, both parties unclothed and apparently sleeping. She turned a flashlight on them and engaged in an argument with the other woman, who insisted the man was not the defendant’s husband but her own. At this point there is a conflict of evidence as to which woman first had possession of a knife and whether they tussled over it; however, the defendant seized the knife, inflicted five wounds in her husband’s back and then turned him over and stabbed him in the mouth. She then inflicted minor wounds on the other woman. She was convicted of manslaughter of her husband and aggravated assault on Catherine Thomas.

Judge Evans (concurring in part and dissenting in part):

Mattie Lou Henderson discovered her common law husband of three years, Grady Williams, in bed with Catherine Thomas, clothed only in a work shirt, and lying directly on top of Catherine Thomas, who was clad only in a bra. She heard Catherine “grunting and going on.” She entered the bedroom where her husband and Catherine were in bed together and inflicted cuts with a knife on Grady (her husband) from which he died, and she inflicted cuts on Catherine Thomas of less severity.

Mattie Lou Henderson was tried in Superior Court of Bibb County and convicted of voluntary manslaughter as to her common law husband, Grady Williams, and convicted of aggravated assault as to Catherine Thomas.

[29] Book: Criminal Investigation. By Kären M. Hess, Christine Hess Orthmann, and Henry Lim Cho. Cengage Learning, 2016.

Page 274:

Involuntary manslaughter is accidental homicide that results from extreme (culpable) negligence. Examples of involuntary manslaughter include handling a firearm negligently; leaving poison where children may take it; and operating an automobile, boat, or aircraft in a criminally negligent manner. Some states, such as California, have a third category of manslaughter: manslaughter with a motor vehicle.

Other acts that can be classified as involuntary manslaughter include shooting another person with a firearm or other dangerous weapon while mistakenly believing that person to be an animal; setting a spring gun, pitfall, deadfall, snare, or other dangerous device designed to trap animals but capable of harming people; and negligently and intentionally allowing a known vicious animal to roam free.

[30] Article: “Abortion Doctor Kermit Gosnell Convicted of First-Degree Murder.” By Tracy Connor. NBC News, May 13, 2013. <www.nbcnews.com>

Philadelphia abortion provider Kermit Gosnell was convicted Monday of three counts of first-degree murder for the death of three babies that prosecutors said were delivered alive and subsequently killed. …

The jury also found Gosnell not guilty of third-degree murder but guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Karnamaya Mongar, a 41-year-old woman who died after an anesthesia overdose during a 2009 abortion.

Gosnell was convicted of a host of other charges, including infanticide, conspiracy and running a corrupt organization, NBCPhiladelphia.com reported.

[31] Article: “Homicide.” Wex Legal Encyclopedia. Last updated in January 2023. <www.law.cornell.edu>

Justifiable homicide may be when a person kills in self-defense or similar circumstances. It is not a legal charge but a classification used by police in cases where no crime was committed. The person who committed the killing will not be held criminally responsible, but civil penalties may still apply.

[32] Article: “Watch How Kyle Rittenhouse Reacted as Jury Acquitted Him of Murder and All Other Charges.” By Alberto Luperon. Law & Crime, November 19, 2021. <lawandcrime.com>

The Illinois native has said he was in Kenosha, Wisconsin, for lifeguard work when people began demonstrating in response to the police shooting of local man Jacob Blake, who is Black. Protests spiraled into property destruction and violence. Armed men took to the streets, they said, to protect property from rioters. Rittenhouse, a teen armed with an AR-15 rifle, joined them and held himself out as a medic. Rosenbaum ambushed him, the defense said, and Rittenhouse shot the man to protect himself. Nearby protesters, including Huber and Grosskreutz, attacked Rittenhouse, not understanding what actually happened, his defense maintained. Again, Rittenhouse, then age 17, opened fire.

[33] Press release: “Sen. Dahm Files Kyle’s Law.” By Nathan Dahm, November 23, 2021. <oksenate.gov>

Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, has filed legislation to ensure Oklahomans who use self-defense won’t have to face trial for political reasons. If the measure becomes law, victims of malicious prosecution would be able to receive compensation for expenses and damages. …

Kyle Rittenhouse was recently acquitted of all charges in the deaths of two men and the wounding of a third during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin in 2020. Rittenhouse had claimed self-defense in the shootings.

“Kyle Rittenhouse should never have been charged. The video evidence from early on showed it was lawful self-defense,” Dahm said. …

Under Dahm’s legislation, if a person is charged with murder but is found not guilty due to justifiable homicide, the state would have to reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of wages, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in their defense.

[34] Dataset: “Intentional Homicides (Per 100,000 People).” World Bank, December 16, 2021. Accessed December 29, 2021 at <data.worldbank.org>

The intentional killing of a human being by another is the ultimate crime. Its indisputable physical consequences manifested in the form of a dead body also make it the most categorical and calculable. All existing data sources on intentional homicides, both at national and international level, stem from either criminal justice or public health systems. In the former case, data are generated by law enforcement or criminal justice authorities in the process of recording and investigating a crime event. In the latter, data are produced by health authorities certifying the cause of death of an individual.

[35] Report: “Homicide Trends in the United States.” By James Alan Fox and Marianne W. Zawitz. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 25, 2010. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1: “Homicide is of interest not only because of its severity but also because it is a fairly reliable barometer of all violent crime. At a national level, no other crime is measured as accurately and precisely.”

[36] Report: “The Nation’s Two Measures of Homicide.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

The United States uses two national data collection systems to track detailed information on homicides: the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Fatal Injury Reports. … Although the two measures generally capture information on the same types of events, they are designed for distinct purposes and collect different types of information. In combination, however, they produce a fairly comprehensive understanding of homicide, the most serious form of violence.

[37] Report: “The Nation’s Two Measures of Homicide.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

The United States uses two national data collection systems to track detailed information on homicides: the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Fatal Injury Reports. Both measures were developed as part of a federal effort to improve national statistical systems in the early twentieth century and have gone through a number of changes since then to improve their consistency and coverage. Each program provides valuable information on the nature, trends, and patterns of homicides in the United States. Although the two measures generally capture information on the same types of events, they are designed for distinct purposes and collect different types of information. In combination, however, they produce a fairly comprehensive understanding of homicide, the most serious form of violence.

Supplementary Homicide Reports

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) are part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. UCR data provide important information on crime at the local, state, and national level for law enforcement, policymakers, researchers, and the public. Administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) since 1930, the UCR summary program provides data on the total number of crimes known to law enforcement agencies in the United States. In most states, reports from individual law enforcement agencies are compiled monthly by state-level agencies before being forwarded to the FBI. …

National Vital Statistics System, Fatal Injury Reports

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Fatal Injury Reports are developed from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), which includes data derived from the registration of births and deaths at the state and local level. The modern system dates back to 1933 when uniform collection and national-level reporting of birth and death certificates began. …

The NVSS is maintained by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). NVSS data are provided by vital registration systems operated in the various jurisdictions legally responsible for registering vital events—births, deaths, marriages, divorces, and fetal deaths. In the United States, legal authority for registering these events resides individually with the 50 states, 2 cities (Washington, D.C., and New York City), and 5 territories (Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).

The NVSS mortality data are produced from standardized death certificates filed throughout the United States. The death certificate data that the NVSS compiles include decedent age, race, ethnicity, marital status, resident status, educational attainment, residence, cause of death, and the nature of the injuries sustained. The death certificate does not include any information on the suspected perpetrator of a homicide or the victim/offender relationship.

State laws require that a medical examiner or coroner investigate all homicides and other sudden unexpected deaths. In homicide cases, medical examiners and coroners also typically complete the medical part of the death certificate, including manner of death. Funeral directors complete the demographic and other portions through interviews with a member or friend of the family. The death certificates are submitted to state vital statistics offices and forwarded to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). NCHS then classifies each death according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Information on manner of death (e.g., homicide, suicide, unintentional) is combined with information on cause of death to classify deaths using ICD codes, including codes for deaths due to external causes of injury and poisoning.

Each year, a very small number of deaths remain without a manner of death or may be missing from the NVSS. It is believed that the NVSS covers 99% of the birth and death events in the United States. However, there are no published estimates on the coverage of the NVSS with regard to homicide specifically. Each jurisdiction maintains individual vital statistics files and sets its own criteria for closing those files. NCHS closes the national file after all states have submitted their records and all data are coded, classified, and standardized between states.

[38] Report: “The Nation’s Two Measures of Homicide.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) are part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. …

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Fatal Injury Reports are developed from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS)….

The NVSS mortality data are produced from standardized death certificates filed throughout the United States.

Page 2:

Because the UCR program does not include federal law enforcement agencies, SHR data do not measure homicides occurring in federal prisons, on military bases, and on Indian reservations.2

2 Although some crimes occurring on tribal lands are reported to the UCR by tribal law enforcement agencies, an unknown proportion of more serious crimes, including homicide, fall under the jurisdiction of federal law enforcement and are not reported to the UCR. Homicides occurring on tribal lands and reported to the UCR by local law enforcement agencies cannot be distinguished from homicides occurring on nontribal lands also under the agency’s jurisdiction.

Page 3:

NVSSHomicide definition … Injuries inflicted by another person with intent to injure or kill by any means …

SHRHomicide definition … Willful killing of one human being by another, includes murders & nonnegligent manslaughters …

NVSSReporting is Mandatory …

SHRReporting is Voluntary …

NVSSData collection methods … Manner/cause of death determined by medical examiners/coroners …

SHRData collection methods … In most states, reports from individual law enforcement agencies are compiled monthly by state-level agencies and then forwarded to the FBI …

The NVSS consistently shows a higher number and rate of homicides in the United States compared to the SHR, likely due to the differences in coverage and scope and the voluntary versus mandatory nature of the data collection as described above. …

Unlike the SHR, the NVSS homicide classification includes assault by the crashing of a motor vehicle, but this category generally accounts for less than 100 deaths per year.

Page 4:

The NVSS will produce more accurate homicide trends at the national level than the SHR, because the NVSS includes deaths that occur in federal jurisdictions and more complete state and local jurisdiction reporting. … Mass homicide events are included in the NVSS; however, only deaths specifically labeled as a foreign terrorist act by the FBI are identified as such in the NVSS data and can be linked together. To date, this includes only the events of September 11, 2001. The SHR also includes mass homicide events but excludes deaths that occurred on September 11, 2001.

[39] Article: “September 11 Attacks.” By Peter L. Bergen. Encyclopædia Britannica. Last Updated September 7, 2022. <www.britannica.com>

How many people were killed in the September 11 attacks?

The exact number of victims—particularly the number of those killed at the World Trade Center—is not definitively known. However, the official death toll, after numerous revisions and not including the 19 terrorists, was set at 2,977 people. At the World Trade Center in New York City, 2,753 people died, of whom 343 were firefighters. The death toll at the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., was 184, and 40 individuals died outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

[40] Webpage: “NIBRS Estimation.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed January 1, 2025 at <bit.ly>

The UCR [Uniform Crime Report] Program has estimated crime statistics for the nation, its regions, and for states since the 1960s. Estimation is the statistical process which allows inferences to be made about an outcome of interest (e.g., the number of robberies in the United States) in a population, even if information about the outcome is only known for part of that population. With the UCR Program collecting crime data only through NIBRS [National Incident-Based Reporting System], estimates for the referenced geographic areas will—for the first time this year—be exclusively based on NIBRS data submitted for 2021. In addition, with the detailed NIBRS data, other inferences about crime will be available, e.g., age, sex, and race about victims and persons arrested, as well as more estimates for more offenses.

With careful planning and execution by the FBI, in conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a NIBRS Estimation Process was created in anticipation of the move to NIBRS. Historically, estimates were based on data contributed annually by law enforcement agencies that covered 90% or more of the U.S. population. With such a high coverage rate, estimation was a more straightforward process. Initially, as agencies continue to transition to the more comprehensive NIBRS collection method, the program will experience a period of lower participation (for 2021, 65% of population covered). The more robust and complex estimation process to account for unreported data will bridge this gap.

This year, you will notice more information about estimation as the UCR Program assures our users understand our NIBRS estimation process. One example: estimates from NIBRS will have confidence intervals (the mean of an estimate plus or minus the variation possible in that estimate) for the first time. However, estimates found to have a level of statistical uncertainty beyond established standards will not be published by the UCR Program.

[41] Webpage: “NIBRS Estimation.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed January 1, 2025 at <bit.ly>

The UCR [Uniform Crime Report] Program has estimated crime statistics for the nation, its regions, and for states since the 1960s. Estimation is the statistical process which allows inferences to be made about an outcome of interest (e.g., the number of robberies in the United States) in a population, even if information about the outcome is only known for part of that population. With the UCR Program collecting crime data only through NIBRS [National Incident-Based Reporting System], estimates for the referenced geographic areas will—for the first time this year—be exclusively based on NIBRS data submitted for 2021. In addition, with the detailed NIBRS data, other inferences about crime will be available, e.g., age, sex, and race about victims and persons arrested, as well as more estimates for more offenses.

With careful planning and execution by the FBI, in conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a NIBRS Estimation Process was created in anticipation of the move to NIBRS. Historically, estimates were based on data contributed annually by law enforcement agencies that covered 90% or more of the U.S. population. With such a high coverage rate, estimation was a more straightforward process. Initially, as agencies continue to transition to the more comprehensive NIBRS collection method, the program will experience a period of lower participation (for 2021, 65% of population covered). The more robust and complex estimation process to account for unreported data will bridge this gap.

This year, you will notice more information about estimation as the UCR Program assures our users understand our NIBRS estimation process. One example: estimates from NIBRS will have confidence intervals (the mean of an estimate plus or minus the variation possible in that estimate) for the first time. However, estimates found to have a level of statistical uncertainty beyond established standards will not be published by the UCR Program.

[42] Report: “2022 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2023. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 42–43 of PDF:

On January 1, 2021, the UCR [Uniform Crime Reporting] Program transitioned to collecting crime data only through NIBRS [National Incident-Based Reporting System]. To facilitate the transition, the UCR Program has worked diligently to offer resources such as programming and technical support, training, and outreach to law enforcement agencies; these resources continue to be available to agencies that have yet to complete the transition. In addition to publishing the NIBRS data of more than 11,500 law enforcement agencies for 2021, the UCR Program produced NIBRS estimates in conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Statistics. However, participation for 2021 remained below a statistically acceptable level to be nationally representative for trend analyses. To mitigate risks associated with low participation due to several agencies not yet completing the transition to NIBRS, the UCR Program published a limited release of the traditional CIUS, 2021 as part of Crime in the Nation, 2021.

The decreased participation for the 2021 data release could have caused a misinterpretation of reported crime data and potentially an incorrect understanding of national crime trends. Thus, the abridged CIUS, 2021 data release included some traditional tables, but eliminated tables that represented a national view or presented a trending view of 2021 data versus previous years’ data. For the 2022 data year, in order to resume providing nationally representative data, the FBI accepted SRS [Summary Reporting System] data submissions from agencies that have not yet transitioned to NIBRS. This measure will help ensure continuity to the UCR Program’s crime statistics.

Although the increase in participation from 2021 to 2022 is partially due to the inclusion of SRS data, an additional 1,499 law enforcement agencies submitted data through NIBRS in 2022 when compared to 2021.

[43] Report: “The Transition to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS): A Comparison of 2020 and 2021 NIBRS Estimates.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2022. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 3 (of PDF): “Table 1: National Violent Crime … 2021 … Murder and Non-negligent Manslaughter Estimate [=] 22,900 … Estimate Lower Bound [=] 21,300 … Estimate Upper Bound [=] 24,600”

CALCULATION: 24,600 – 21,300 = 3,300

NOTE: More facts about how the FBI is estimating and burying murder data is available in Just Facts’ article, “As Murders Soar, FBI Buries the Data.”

[44] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 43 (of PDF):

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program provides a nationwide view of crime based on data submissions reported by law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The data submitted to various distinct collections, within the FBI’s UCR Program, detail criminal incidents as well as law enforcement data. For decades, several of these compilations have been published annually. Though each collection presents details of crime or law enforcement data based on data provided by participating agencies, the reports vary in context, participation, and publication criteria.

Crime in the Nation, 2023, includes data received from 16,334 law enforcement agencies that provided data through either the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) or the Summary Reporting System (SRS). These agencies represent 85.2 percent of agencies actively enrolled in the FBI’s UCR Program and cover a combined population of 315,761,680 (94.3 percent) inhabitants. Notably, every city agency covering a population of 1,000,000 or more inhabitants contributed a full 12 months of data to the FBI’s UCR Program in 2023.

[45] Report: “The Nation’s Two Measures of Homicide.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

The United States uses two national data collection systems to track detailed information on homicides: the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports [SHR] and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Fatal Injury Reports. …

Fatal Injury Reports are developed from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), which includes data derived from the registration of births and deaths at the state and local level. ….

The NVSS is maintained by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). NVSS data are provided by vital registration systems operated in the various jurisdictions legally responsible for registering vital events—births, deaths, marriages, divorces, and fetal deaths. ….

The NVSS mortality data are produced from standardized death certificates filed throughout the United States.

Page 3:

Homicides reported through the NVSS are classified according to the ICD [International Classification of Diseases] system into two general categories: homicide or legal intervention. Both intentional and negligent homicides are defined as “homicides” in the NVSS, which makes no judgment of criminal intent. …

SHR data include intentional homicides known to law enforcement and exclude justifiable homicides and nonnegligent manslaughter. NVSS data include all homicides committed by civilians (regardless of intent) and exclude homicides due to legal intervention.

[46] Report: “2019 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2020. <ucr.fbi.gov>


Topic: “Murder.” <ucr.fbi.gov>


The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.

The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are classified as aggravated assaults.

[47] Report: “The Nation’s Two Measures of Homicide.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

Fatal Injury Reports are developed from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), which includes data derived from the registration of births and deaths at the state and local level. ….

The NVSS is maintained by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). …

The NVSS mortality data are produced from standardized death certificates filed throughout the United States.

Page 3: “NVSS data include all homicides committed by civilians (regardless of intent) and exclude homicides due to legal intervention.”

[48] Paper: “Homicides by Police: Comparing Counts From the National Violent Death Reporting System, Vital Statistics, and Supplementary Homicide Reports.” By Catherine Barber and others. American Journal of Public Health, May 2016. Pages 922–927. <ajph.aphapublications.org>

Page 923:

The CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics assembles Vital Statistics mortality data, which are derived from the death certificate. The coroner or medical examiner in the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred investigates homicides and other suspicious deaths at the local level. The coroner or medical examiner fills out the portion of the death certificate that captures the manner and causes of death. …

… Although the report that the coroner or medical examiner writes will typically explicitly mention if a decedent died at the hands of the police, this information is not always mentioned on the death certificate itself, in which case the death is coded as a homicide for underlying cause.


Page 924:

For the period 2005 to 2012, we identified 1,552 law enforcement homicides that occurred in the 16 NVDRS [National Violent Death Reporting System] states. … [The National] Vital Statistics [system from death certificates] reported 906…. The average annual rate of legal intervention homicides in the 16 NVDRS states over the study period was 0.24 per 100,000 population on the basis of the study count.

Page 925:

The NVDRS is a more complete reporting system for identifying legal intervention homicides than is the Vital Statistics system or the FBI’s SHR. The NVDRS captured more than twice the legal intervention deaths reported by SHRs and 71% more than reported by Vital Statistics.

False positives were rare in the NVDRS, and most were not errors per se but resulted from our applying a more restrictive case definition. The NVDRS abstractors did, however, miss at least 10% of the legal intervention deaths that we identified, and these were largely errors.

[49] Report: “The Nation’s Two Measures of Homicide.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

The United States uses two national data collection systems to track detailed information on homicides: the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Fatal Injury Reports. … Although the two measures generally capture information on the same types of events, they are designed for distinct purposes and collect different types of information. In combination, however, they produce a fairly comprehensive understanding of homicide, the most serious form of violence. …

Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) are part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. …

Fatal Injury Reports are developed from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), which includes data derived from the registration of births and deaths at the state and local level. ….

The NVSS is maintained by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). NVSS data are provided by vital registration systems operated in the various jurisdictions legally responsible for registering vital events—births, deaths, marriages, divorces, and fetal deaths. ….

The NVSS mortality data are produced from standardized death certificates filed throughout the United States.

Page 4: “A more comprehensive understanding of homicide in the United States can perhaps be achieved by combining the strengths of the two data collection systems.”

[50] Article: “As Murders Soar, FBI Buries the Data.” By James D. Agresti. Just Facts, November 4, 2022. <www.justfactsdaily.com>

NOTE: This section of the article documents the hows and whys of Just Facts’ methodology.

[51] Dataset: “Homicide Injury Deaths and Rates Per 100,000, 1999–2020.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed September 28, 2022 at <wisqars.cdc.gov>

[52] Dataset: “Homicide Mortality, Quarterly Provisional Estimates.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed October 26, 2022 at <www.cdc.gov>

[53] Report: “2019 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2020. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Expanded Homicide Data Table 15: Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen, 2015–2019.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

[54] Paper: “Homicides by Police: Comparing Counts From the National Violent Death Reporting System, Vital Statistics, and Supplementary Homicide Reports.” By Catherine Barber and others. American Journal of Public Health, May 2016. Pages 922–927. <ajph.aphapublications.org>


Page 924: “For the period 2005 to 2012, we identified 1552 law enforcement homicides that occurred in the 16 NVDRS [National Violent Death Reporting System] states. … [The National] Vital Statistics [system from death certificates] reported 906…. The average annual rate of legal intervention homicides in the 16 NVDRS states over the study period was 0.24 per 100 000 population on the basis of the study count.”

[55] Article: “As Murders Soar, FBI Buries the Data.” By James D. Agresti. Just Facts, November 4, 2022. <www.justfactsdaily.com>

NOTES:

  • This section of the article documents the hows and whys of Just Facts’ methodology.
  • This spreadsheet documents all of the data and calculations of the article.

[56] Article: “The FBI’s Biden-Era Murder Estimates Are Far Below the Number of Homicides Recorded on Death Certificates.” By James D. Agresti. Just Facts, November 18, 2024. <www.justfactsdaily.com>

Death certificates have always provided broader and more accurate data than the FBI’s figures, but the gap between them has grown sharply under the Biden administration. This may indicate that local law enforcement agencies, states, and/or the FBI are undercounting murders.

Furthermore, the Biden administration FBI inexplicably revised its pre-Biden murder data all the way back to 2003, elevating the counts in certain years by up to 7%. The FBI made these unprecedented alterations without so much as a footnote to inform the public.

As a result of those factors and others, the gap between murders reported by the FBI and the number of homicides recorded on death certificates has grown from a low of 16 killings in 2003 to an average of 3,711 killings per year during Biden’s presidency….

Again, all of the figures above are homicides recorded on death certificates that are not reported as murders by Biden’s FBI.

The FBI is part of the DOJ, which is under the authority of the president. The leaders of the DOJ and FBI are both appointed by the president. …

Biden-Era Revisions

Each year in the fall, the FBI typically publishes crime data from the prior year and revises its data from one year before that. In 2020, for example, the FBI published new murder data for 2019 and revised its murder estimate for 2018 from 16,214 to 16,374, an increase of 160 murders, or 1%. To alert people to the change, the FBI added a footnote next to the year 2018 that says, “The crime figures have been adjusted.”

In 2023, however, the FBI revised its murder data from every prior year back to 2003. While the changes in some years were minimal, others were substantial. For example, the FBI altered its murder estimate for 2003 from 16,528 to 17,716, an increase of 1,188, or 7%.

Illuminating the rarity of those changes, the highlighted figures in the table below show all of the FBI’s revisions of murder data from 2003 to 2022 in reports published from 2004 to 2023. Note that the FBI excluded most historical data from its 2022 publication of 2021 data, which is why there are only two figures in the 2021 column….

Furthermore, the scale of the changes that the FBI published in 2023 are far greater than any in the past. Yet, the FBI only included a footnote to alert people to the change for 2021 and none of the other 18 years.

In 2024, the FBI made other murder revisions. Most significantly, it reduced the murder estimate for 2021 from 22,536 to 21,462, a decrease of 1,074, or 5%. …

To determine if there was a legitimate basis for the FBI’s revisions, Just Facts filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI on June 7. More than five months later, the FBI has not replied.

Just Facts also emailed the FBI’s National Press Office on November 15 and is awaiting a response.

[57] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Homicide Injury Deaths and Rates Per 100,000, 1999–2020.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed September 28, 2022 at <wisqars.cdc.gov>

b) Dataset: “Homicide Injury Deaths and Rates Per 100,000, 2001–2022.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed May 16, 2024 at <wisqars.cdc.gov>

c) Dataset: “Homicide Mortality, Quarterly Provisional Estimates.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed November 18, 2024 at <www.cdc.gov>

d) Report: “2022 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2023. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2003–2022.” <www.justfacts.com>

e) Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2004–2023.” <www.justfacts.com>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[58] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Homicide Injury Deaths and Rates Per 100,000, 2001–2022.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed May 16, 2024 at <wisqars.cdc.gov>

b) Dataset: “Homicide Mortality, Quarterly Provisional Estimates.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed September 23, 2024 at <www.cdc.gov>

c) Dataset: “Legal Intervention Injury Deaths and Rates Per 100,000, 2001–2022.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed May 16, 2024 at <wisqars.cdc.gov>

d) Paper: “Homicides by Police: Comparing Counts From the National Violent Death Reporting System, Vital Statistics, and Supplementary Homicide Reports.” By Catherine Barber and others. American Journal of Public Health, May 2016. Pages 922–927. <ajph.aphapublications.org>

e) Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

“Expanded Homicide Data Table 15. Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen” <www.justfacts.com>

“Expanded Homicide Data Table 8. Murder Victims by Weapon” <www.justfacts.com>

NOTES:

  • As documented here, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report undercounts murders, while homicide-related death certificates compiled by the CDC overcount murders. Thus, Just Facts uses data from both sources and a scholarly journal to calculate murder estimates.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[59] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Homicide Mortality, Quarterly Provisional Estimates.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed September 23, 2024 at <www.cdc.gov>

b) Dataset: “Legal Intervention Injury Deaths and Rates Per 100,000, 2001–2022.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed May 16, 2024 at <wisqars.cdc.gov>

c) Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

“Expanded Homicide Data Table 15. Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen” <www.justfacts.com>

“Expanded Homicide Data Table 8. Murder Victims by Weapon” <www.justfacts.com>

d) Paper: “Homicides by Police: Comparing Counts From the National Violent Death Reporting System, Vital Statistics, and Supplementary Homicide Reports.” By Catherine Barber and others. American Journal of Public Health, May 2016. Pages 922–927. <ajph.aphapublications.org>

NOTES:

  • As documented here, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report undercounts murders, while homicide-related death certificates compiled by the CDC overcount murders. Thus, Just Facts uses data from both sources and a scholarly journal to calculate murder estimates.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[60] Calculated with data from the footnote above and the webpage: “U.S. and World Population Clock.” U.S. Census Bureau, January 4, 2025. <www.census.gov>

“The United States population on July 1, 2024 was: 340,110,988”

CALCULATION: 340,110,988 people / 21,757 murders / = 15,632

[61] Report: “Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization.” By Herbert Koppel. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1987. <www.ncjrs.gov>

Page 1:

Annual victimization rates alone do not convey the full impact of crime as it affects people. No one would express his or her concern by saying, “I am terribly afraid of being mugged between January and December of this year.” People are worried about the possibility that at some time in their lives they will be robbed or raped or assaulted, or their homes will be burglarized.

Annual rates can provide a false sense of security by masking the real impact of crime. Upon hearing that the homicide rate is about 8 to 10 per 100,000 population, one feels safe; after all, 1 chance in 10,000 is not very frightening. Actually, however, at recent homicide rates about 1 of every 133 Americans will become a murder victim; for black males the proportion is estimated to be 1 of every 30.1 Similarly, while 16 out of 10,000 women are rape victims annually, the lifetime chances of suffering a rape are much greater. …

The problem lies with people’s perception of the meaning of annual rates with respect to their own lives. If the Earth revolved around the sun in 180 days, all of our annual crime rates would be halved, but we would not be safer. …

Because of the assumptions involved in the calculations and because the data derive from a sample survey, the numbers presented in this report are estimates only; they should be interpreted only as indications of approximate magnitude, not as exact measures. Essentially they are calculated values of lifetime risk rather than descriptions of what has been observed.

[62] Calculated with data from:

a) Report: “Provisional Life Expectancy Estimates for 2022.” By Elizabeth Arias and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, November 2023. <www.cdc.gov>

b) Dataset: “Homicide Mortality, Quarterly Provisional Estimates.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed September 23, 2024 at <www.cdc.gov>

c) Dataset: “Legal Intervention Injury Deaths and Rates Per 100,000, 2001–2022.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed May 16, 2024 at <wisqars.cdc.gov>

d) Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

“Expanded Homicide Data Table 15. Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen” <www.justfacts.com>

“Expanded Homicide Data Table 8. Murder Victims by Weapon” <www.justfacts.com>

e) Paper: “Homicides by Police: Comparing Counts From the National Violent Death Reporting System, Vital Statistics, and Supplementary Homicide Reports.” By Catherine Barber and others. American Journal of Public Health, May 2016. Pages 922–927. <ajph.aphapublications.org>

NOTES:

  • The methodology to compute the lifetime likelihood of murder based on the annual murder rate was created by a licensed actuary. The actuary doubled-checked this methodology using a different approach that yielded the same results. The results were also tripled-checked by a Ph.D. mathematician and quadrupled-checked by a Ph.D. biostatician.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request

[63] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Homicide Injury Deaths and Rates Per 100,000, 2001–2022.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed May 16, 2024 at <wisqars.cdc.gov>

b) Dataset: “Homicide Mortality, Quarterly Provisional Estimates.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed September 23, 2024 at <www.cdc.gov>

c) Dataset: “Legal Intervention Injury Deaths and Rates Per 100,000, 2001–2022.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed May 16, 2024 at <wisqars.cdc.gov>

d) Paper: “Homicides by Police: Comparing Counts From the National Violent Death Reporting System, Vital Statistics, and Supplementary Homicide Reports.” By Catherine Barber and others. American Journal of Public Health, May 2016. Pages 922–927. <ajph.aphapublications.org>

e) Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

“Expanded Homicide Data Table 15. Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen” <www.justfacts.com>

“Expanded Homicide Data Table 8. Murder Victims by Weapon” <www.justfacts.com>

NOTES:

  • As documented here, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report undercounts murders, while homicide-related death certificates compiled by the CDC overcount murders. Thus, Just Facts uses data from both sources and a scholarly journal to calculate murder estimates.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[64] Data on murders are more accurate than for any other crime because the act of murder produces a dead body.† However, the FBI’s national estimates of murder are incomplete because they:

  • rely on “voluntary” reports “from individual law enforcement agencies that are compiled monthly by state-level agencies.”
  • rarely count “homicides occurring in federal prisons, on military bases, and on Indian reservations.”
  • exclude homicides caused by the deliberate “crashing of a motor vehicle….”
  • exclude homicides from foreign terrorist acts, particularly the people slaughtered on September 11, 2001.‡

A 2014 report by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) explains that data reported by the CDC from death certificates provide “more accurate homicide trends at the national level” and “consistently” show “a higher number and rate of homicides in the United States compared” to FBI data.‡

Nevertheless, death certificates tend to overcount murders because they include:

  • “justifiable homicides” by civilians acting in self-defense,‡ which are not murders.§
  • some justifiable homicides by police, even though these are supposed to be coded as “legal intervention deaths,” not as homicides.#

The 2014 DOJ report states, “A more comprehensive understanding of homicide in the United States can perhaps be achieved by combining the strengths of the two data collection systems.”‡ Therefore, Just Facts uses data from both sources and a scholarly journal to produce murder estimates. This yields figures that are higher than the FBI’s estimates and 4.2% lower than the number of homicides recorded on death certificates. The precise sources used for these calculations are documented in the forthcoming footnote.

NOTES:

  • † Dataset: “Intentional Homicides (Per 100,000 People).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed November 9, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>
    “The intentional killing of a human being by another is the ultimate crime. Its indisputable physical consequences manifested in the form of a dead body also make it the most categorical and calculable.”
  • ‡ Report: “The Nation’s Two Measures of Homicide.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>
  • § Report: “2019 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2020. <ucr.fbi.gov>
    Topic: “Murder.” <ucr.fbi.gov>
    “The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another. The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are classified as aggravated assaults.”
  • # Paper: “Homicides by Police: Comparing Counts From the National Violent Death Reporting System, Vital Statistics, and Supplementary Homicide Reports.” By Catherine Barber and others. American Journal of Public Health, May 2016. Pages 922–927. <ajph.aphapublications.org>
    Page 924: “For the period 2005 to 2012, we identified 1552 law enforcement homicides that occurred in the 16 NVDRS [National Violent Death Reporting System] states. … [The National] Vital Statistics [system from death certificates] reported 906…. The average annual rate of legal intervention homicides in the 16 NVDRS states over the study period was 0.24 per 100 000 population on the basis of the study count.”

[65] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Estimated Offenses, United States, 1960–2008.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Sent from the FBI to Just Facts on June 15, 2010.

b) Reports: “Crime in the United States, 1995–2023.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services. <www.fbi.gov>

c) Dataset: “Homicide Injury Deaths and Rates Per 100,000, 2001–2022.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed May 16, 2024 at <wisqars.cdc.gov>

d) Dataset: “Legal Intervention Injury Deaths and Rates Per 100,000, 1999–2020.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed October 21, 2022 at <wisqars.cdc.gov>

e) Dataset: “Homicide Mortality, Quarterly Provisional Estimates.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed September 23, 2024 at <www.cdc.gov>

f) Paper: “Homicides by Police: Comparing Counts From the National Violent Death Reporting System, Vital Statistics, and Supplementary Homicide Reports.” By Catherine Barber and others. American Journal of Public Health, May 2016. Pages 922–927. <ajph.aphapublications.org>

g) Dataset: “Homicide Mortality, Quarterly Provisional Estimates.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed October 26, 2022 at <www.cdc.gov>

NOTES:

  • As documented here, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report undercounts murders, while homicide-related death certificates compiled by the CDC overcount murders. Thus, Just Facts uses data from both sources and a scholarly journal to calculate murder estimates.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[66] Calculated with data from the footnote above and:

a) Dataset: “2020, United States, Homicide Injury Deaths and Rates per 100,000.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed November 5, 2022 at <wisqars.cdc.gov>

“Number of Deaths [=] 24,576”

b) Dataset: “2020, United States, Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed November 5, 2022 at <wisqars.cdc.gov>

“Number of Deaths [=] 19,384”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 19,384 homicides with firearms / 24,576 homicides = 78.9%
  • 23,551 murders × 78.9% = 18,576

NOTE: As documented here, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report undercounts murders, while homicide-related death certificates compiled by the CDC overcount murders. Thus, Just Facts uses data from both sources and a scholarly journal to calculate murder estimates.

[67] Paper: “The Lethality of Criminal Assault 1960–1999.” By Anthony R. Harris and others. Homicide Studies, May 1, 2002. Pages 128–166. <journals.sagepub.com>

Page 128: “Starting from the basic view that homicides are aggravated assaults with the outcome of the victim’s death, we assembled evidence from national data sources to show that the principal explanation of the downward trend in lethality involves parallel developments in medical technology and related medical support services that have suppressed the homicide rate compared to what it would be had such progress not been made.”

Page 136: “A number of UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] and other data sources were used in our analyses. The first dataset used contains annual UCR national-level rates of homicides and aggravated assaults known to the police from 1960 to 1999.”

Page 137:

There is little question about the validity of the UCR-derived homicide count, the sole term in the numerator of the measure and, along with the aggravated assault count, the second term in the lethality denominator. Though the UCR offenses known-based national homicide rate falls consistently about 5% below the gold standard Vital Statistics (NCHS) rate in the period examined, the correlation of the UCR offenses known-based national homicide rate with the Vital Statistics homicide rate is extremely high (r = .9947). Thus, while compared to the Vital Statistics homicide count, the UCR offenses known count leads to a systemic 5% or so underestimate of criminal lethality,7 the difference is more or less constant across time and for the purpose of symmetry does not seriously vitiate the use of UCR counts.

A more complicated set of issues concerns the use of aggravated assaults as an historically unbiased measure of life-threatening, criminally induced injury. … [T]he shortcomings inherent in UCR aggravated assault data are well known…. These shortcomings basically concern variation in citizens’ perceptions and reporting of violent acts—especially among acquaintances, friends, and intimates—as criminal assaults rather than as civil problems, as well as substantial long-term and jurisdictional de facto discretion in the police use of the aggravated assault category to record known assaults ranging from criminal threats of injury with weapons, to assaults producing very minor injuries, to assaults producing potentially lethal trauma.

Pages 141–142: “It is worth noting that the second of the two periods of greatest lethality drops, 1960–1965 and 1973–1978, occurs on the heels of the American involvement in Vietnam, quite likely the kind of post-war period of great gain in trauma care identified by medical historians (Rosen and Anderson, 1998; Trunkey, 2000.)”

Page 147:

Table 1.3. Breakdown of Monthly Assaultsa & Lethality by Weaponry for 1964 & 1999 …

Firearms … 1964 Lethality [=] 0.1551 …

Unadjusted 1999 Lethality [=] 0.0539 …

Lethality Drop [=] –65.21% …

a Assaults = Homicides + Aggravated Assaults

Page 157:

Essential here are basic developments in telecommunication services, from the simple proliferation of 911 emergency telephone dialing, radio dispatched communications between emergency service workers, to beeper services for MDs, to the use of cell phones by witnesses of accidents and assaults on isolated highways and streets. Developments in open heart, transplant surgery, emergency medicine, trauma centers and systems, and the training levels of prehospital trauma personnel are important examples of medical progress, as is the development and proliferation of such medical hardware as Computerized Tomographic Scanners (CTs) and portable defibrillators. By no means unimportant here is the simple historical proliferation of local and county hospitals throughout the nation.

[68] Paper: “The Decline of Arrest Clearances For Criminal Homicide: Causes, Correlates, and Third Parties.” By Marc Riedel and John Jarvis. Criminal Justice Policy Review, January 1, 1999. Pages 279–306. <cjp.sagepub.com>

“The percent of offenders arrested for murder in the United States has declined in all reporting cities from 92% in 1960 to 66% in 1997.”

[69] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 593–594 (of PDF):

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, law enforcement agencies can clear, or “close,” offenses in one of two ways: by arrest or by exceptional means. Although an agency may administratively close a case, that does not necessarily mean that the agency can clear the offense for UCR purposes. To clear an offense within the UCR Program’s guidelines, the reporting agency must adhere to certain criteria, which are outlined in the following text. (Note: The UCR Program does not distinguish between offenses cleared by arrest and those cleared by exceptional means in collecting or publishing data via the traditional Summary Reporting System.)

Cleared by Arrest

In the UCR Program, a law enforcement agency reports that an offense is cleared by arrest, or solved for crime reporting purposes, when three specific conditions have been met. The three conditions are that at least one person has been:

• Arrested.

• Charged with the commission of the offense.

• Turned over to the court for prosecution (whether following arrest, court summons, or police notice).

In its clearance calculations, the UCR Program counts the number of offenses that are cleared, not the number of persons arrested. The arrest of one person may clear several crimes, and the arrest of many persons may clear only one offense. In addition, some clearances that an agency records in a particular calendar year, such as 2022, may pertain to offenses that occurred in previous years.

Cleared by Exceptional Means

In certain situations, elements beyond law enforcement’s control prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender. When this occurs, the agency can clear the offense exceptionally. Law enforcement agencies must meet the following four conditions in order to clear an offense by exceptional means.

The agency must have:

• Identified the offender.

• Gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution.

• Identified the offender’s exact location so that the suspect could be taken into custody immediately.

• Encountered a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that prohibits the agency from arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender.

Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense. In the UCR Program, the recovery of property alone does not clear an offense. …

When considering clearances of violent crimes, 57.8 percent of murder offenses, 46.1 percent of aggravated assault offenses, 26.9 percent of rape offenses, and 27.6 percent of robbery offenses were cleared.

[70] See Just Facts’ research on racial issues and unsolved murders.

[71] Calculated with data from the webpage: “Clearance Rates: Uniform Crime Report for Homicides: 1965–2022.” Murder Accountability Project. Accessed May 25, 2024 at <www.murderdata.org>

“Clearance Rates … Uniform Crime Report for Homicides: 1965–2022 … Homicides [=] 1,010,902 … Clearances [=] 673,301”

CALCULATION: 1,010,902 Homicides – 673,301 Clearances = 337,601 Unsolved Murders

[72] Report: “2022 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, July 17, 2023. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 1–2 (of PDF):

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, law enforcement agencies can clear, or “close,” offenses in one of two ways: by arrest or by exceptional means. Although an agency may administratively close a case, that does not necessarily mean that the agency can clear the offense for UCR purposes. To clear an offense within the UCR Program’s guidelines, the reporting agency must adhere to certain criteria, which are outlined in the following text. (Note: The UCR Program does not distinguish between offenses cleared by arrest and those cleared by exceptional means in collecting or publishing data via the traditional Summary Reporting System.)

Cleared by Arrest

In the UCR Program, a law enforcement agency reports that an offense is cleared by arrest, or solved for crime reporting purposes, when three specific conditions have been met. The three conditions are that at least one person has been:

• Arrested.

• Charged with the commission of the offense.

• Turned over to the court for prosecution (whether following arrest, court summons, or police notice).

In its clearance calculations, the UCR Program counts the number of offenses that are cleared, not the number of persons arrested. The arrest of one person may clear several crimes, and the arrest of many persons may clear only one offense. In addition, some clearances that an agency records in a particular calendar year, such as 2022, may pertain to offenses that occurred in previous years.

Cleared by Exceptional Means

In certain situations, elements beyond law enforcement’s control prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender. When this occurs, the agency can clear the offense exceptionally. Law enforcement agencies must meet the following four conditions in order to clear an offense by exceptional means. The agency must have:

• Identified the offender.

• Gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution.

• Identified the offender’s exact location so that the suspect could be taken into custody immediately.

• Encountered a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that prohibits the agency from arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender.

Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense. In the UCR Program, the recovery of property alone does not clear an offense.

[73] Report: “Analysis of Variables Affecting the Clearance of Homicides: A Multistate Study.” By Charles Wellford and James Cronin. Justice Research and Statistics Association, October 1999. <justiceresearch.dspacedirect.org>

Page 2:

The arrest of a suspect is one of the most important events in the criminal justice system, for without an arrest, none of the accepted forms of punishment can be applied. According to deterrence theory (Beccaria, 1764/1963) a punishment must be applied with certainty, severity, and celerity to prevent an offender from committing future offenses (specific deterrence), as well as to prevent others who witness the results of the punishment from engaging in criminal behavior (general deterrence). Although traditionally most of the emphasis has been placed on severity, criminologists have long considered certainty and celerity to be the more important aspects of deterrence (Beccaria, 1764/1963). Therefore, a decrease in clearance rates (low certainty) signals an inability of the criminal justice system to achieve one of its primary goals—the reduction of future crime, both specific and general. Similarly, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, or any other aim of punishment cannot be achieved without an arrest. Clearance rates can also affect citizens’ perception and fear of crime, in addition to reflecting the criminal justice system’s ability to impose punishments on offenders.

[74] Article: “Deadliest Year in Baltimore History Ends With 344 Homicides.” By Kevin Rector. Baltimore Sun, January 1, 2016. <www.baltimoresun.com>

State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby called Baltimore the “home of witness intimidation,” suggesting residents were too scared to assist police in tackling crime. Police have identified hundreds of shooting suspects but say they have struggled to pin charges on most without community tips.

Data show that the rate at which police cleared—or closed—homicide cases plummeted this year to about 30 percent, leaving killers on the street and further diminishing the public’s confidence in law enforcement.

[75] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2018.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 2021. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases. All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. …

They exclude persons who were released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. This report is based on NCRP data from 44 states…. In 2018, these states were responsible for 97% of all persons released from state prisons nationwide. Annually administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the NCRP obtains individual-level records from state departments of corrections on prisoners entering and leaving prison custody or community supervision. …

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before Initial Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2018 … Murder … Median [=] 17.5 yrs. … Mean [=] 17.8 yrs.

[76] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2016.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2018. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases.

All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. They exclude persons who had been released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. …

Ninety-six percent of violent offenders released in 2016, including 70% of those sentenced for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, served less than 20 years before initial release from state prison. …

By offense type, the median time served was 13.4 years for murder, 2.2 years for violent crimes excluding murder….

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before First Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2016

Most Serious Offense

Time Served in Prisona

Medianb [Years]

Violent

2.4

Murderc

13.4

Note: … First release does not refer to first-time offenders but to offenders’ first release from a given sentence (whether they are first-time offenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or less; those with missing values for most serious offense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 2,755 deaths in 2016. …

a Excludes time served in jail.
b The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers.
c Includes non-negligent manslaughter. …

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2016.

[77] Article: “DC Police Chief Offers Simple Solution to Get Homicide Rates Down: ‘Keep Violent People in Jail’.” By Joe Silverstein. Fox News, March 8, 2023. <www.foxnews.com>

Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee gave a simple solution for what Washington, D.C., can do differently to get homicides down Monday: “Keep violent people in jail.” …

“What we got to do, if we really want to see homicides go down, is keep bad guys with guns in jail. Because when they’re in jail, they can’t be in communities shooting people. So when people talk about what we gonna do different, or what we should do different, what we need to do different, that’s the thing that we need to do different,” Contee said.

“We need to keep violent people in jail. Right now, the average homicide suspect has been arrested eleven times prior to them committing a homicide,” the chief continued. “That is a problem. That is a problem.”

[78] Calculated with data from the article: “2019 Closes with 348 Homicides in Baltimore, Second-Deadliest Year on Record.” By Tim Prudente. Baltimore Sun, January 1, 2020. <www.baltimoresun.com>

Baltimore ended 2019 with 348 homicides on record, according to data compiled by The Baltimore Sun.

The year had already set a grim record of 57 killings per 100,000 people, the city’s worst homicide rate on record. …

The city’s total homicide count is second only to 1993, when the city suffered 353 killings and had nearly 125,000 more people. …

2019 Victim and Suspect Analysis Report

This report exhibits the victims and suspects of Homicides in 2019 and chronicles the groupings thereof. …

Suspects …

Average # of arrest per suspect: [=] 8.2 … Percent with prior records: [=] 81.4% … Percent on P&P [parole and probation] at time of incident: [=] 26.7% … Percent Arrested for Violent Crimes: [=] 52.3% …

Prepared by the Homicide Administrative Unit

[79] Article: “Deadliest Year in Baltimore History Ends with 344 Homicides.” By Kevin Rector. Baltimore Sun, January 1, 2016. <www.baltimoresun.com>

“Blood was shed in Baltimore at an unprecedented pace in 2015, with mostly young, black men shot to death in a near-daily crush of violence. … On a per-capita basis, the year was the deadliest ever in the city. The year’s tally of 344 homicides was second only to the record 353 in 1993, when Baltimore had about 100,000 more residents.”

[80] Article: “Statistical Snapshots from Baltimore’s Deadliest Year: Suspects, Victims and Cops.” By Kevin Rector. Baltimore Sun, January 7, 2016. <www.baltimoresun.com>

While detectives have no motive or suspects in many of the year’s 344 homicides, the department’s annual homicide analysis report captures what the department does know about the people it arrested and those who were killed. …

The department said it had 85 homicide suspects as of Dec. 31, when the data was compiled. …

Among the suspects, 76.5 percent had prior criminal records, 62.4 percent had prior drug arrests, 52.9 percent had been arrested for violent crimes, and 41.2 percent had been arrested for gun crimes. Nearly a quarter were on parole and probation at the time of the killing for which they are now a suspect. Nearly 2.5 percent were on parole and probation specifically for a gun crime at the time of the incident.

The average suspect had been arrested more than nine times before, and 15.3 percent of the suspects were suspected gang members, the report said.

[81] Dataset: “Intentional Homicides (Per 100,000 People).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed November 9, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

“The intentional killing of a human being by another is the ultimate crime. Its indisputable physical consequences manifested in the form of a dead body also make it the most categorical and calculable.”

[82] Article: “New York Killers, and Those Killed, by Numbers.” By Jo Craven Mcginty. New York Times, April 28, 2006. <www.nytimes.com>

“From 2003 through 2005, 1,662 murders were committed in New York. … More than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records; and of those who wound up killed, more than half had them.”

[83] Dataset: “Intentional Homicides (Per 100,000 People).” World Bank, September 16, 2022. Accessed November 9, 2022 at <data.worldbank.org>

“The intentional killing of a human being by another is the ultimate crime. Its indisputable physical consequences manifested in the form of a dead body also make it the most categorical and calculable.”

[84] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 45 (of PDF): “Violent crime consists of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.”

[85] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 39:

Second, the two programs measure an overlapping but nonidentical set of crimes. The NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] includes, but the UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] Program’s SRS [Summary Reporting System] excludes, sexual assault (completed, attempted, and threatened), attempted robberies, verbal threats of rape, simple assault, and crimes not reported to law enforcement. UCR includes, but NCVS excludes, homicide, arson, commercial crimes, and crimes against children under age 12. The UCR Program’s SRS also captures crimes reported to law enforcement but collects only arrest data for simple assault and sex offenses other than rape.

[86] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 37–39:

National Crime Victimization Survey

The NCVS, administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), provides a detailed picture of crime incidents, victims, and trends. The program began in 1973 as the National Crime Survey (NCS). In 1992, NCS was renamed NCVS to reflect a substantial redesign effort that focused primarily on methodological changes to the survey. The redesign also improved the initial questions used to screen for victimization incidents, updated the survey methods to take advantage of new technologies, and broadened the scope of crimes measured. …

Each year, BJS interviews a nationally representative sample of approximately 160,000 persons age 12 or older living in households across the nation. Households remain in the sample for 3 years. New households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis. NCVS collects information on crimes experienced by individuals and households during the six months preceding the interview, whether or not those crimes were reported to law enforcement. A unique feature of NCVS is that it collects both reported and unreported crimes and reasons why the crime was or was not reported. ….

BJS derives the NCVS estimates from interviewing a sample. The estimates are subject to a margin of error. This error is known and is reflected in the standard error of the estimate.

[87] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 5:

Total violent crime

Includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Excludes homicide because the National Crime Victimization Survey is based on interviews with victims.

Page 19:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an annual data collection carried out by the U.S. Census Bureau. The NCVS is a self-report survey that is administered annually from January 1 to December 31. Annual NCVS estimates are based on the number and characteristics of crimes that respondents experienced during the prior 6 months, excluding the month in which they were interviewed. Therefore, the 2023 survey covers crimes experienced from July 1, 2022 to November 30, 2023, with March 15, 2023, as the middle of the reference period. Crimes are classified by the year of the survey and not by the year of the crime.

The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households.

[88] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 39:

Second, the two programs measure an overlapping but nonidentical set of crimes. The NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] includes, but the UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] Program’s SRS [Summary Reporting System] excludes, sexual assault (completed, attempted, and threatened), attempted robberies, verbal threats of rape, simple assault, and crimes not reported to law enforcement. UCR includes, but NCVS excludes, homicide, arson, commercial crimes, and crimes against children under age 12.

[89] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 39:

Second, the two programs measure an overlapping but nonidentical set of crimes. The NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] includes, but the UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] Program’s SRS [Summary Reporting System] excludes, sexual assault (completed, attempted, and threatened), attempted robberies, verbal threats of rape, simple assault, and crimes not reported to law enforcement.

[90] Report: “The Nation’s Two Measures of Homicide.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) are part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. …

Page 3:

SHRReporting is Voluntary …

SHRData collection methods … In most states, reports from individual law enforcement agencies are compiled monthly by state-level agencies and then forwarded to the FBI …

[91] Webpage: “NIBRS Estimation.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed January 1, 2025 at <bit.ly>

The UCR [Uniform Crime Report] Program has estimated crime statistics for the nation, its regions, and for states since the 1960s. Estimation is the statistical process which allows inferences to be made about an outcome of interest (e.g., the number of robberies in the United States) in a population, even if information about the outcome is only known for part of that population. With the UCR Program collecting crime data only through NIBRS [National Incident-Based Reporting System], estimates for the referenced geographic areas will—for the first time this year—be exclusively based on NIBRS data submitted for 2021. In addition, with the detailed NIBRS data, other inferences about crime will be available, e.g., age, sex, and race about victims and persons arrested, as well as more estimates for more offenses.

With careful planning and execution by the FBI, in conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a NIBRS Estimation Process was created in anticipation of the move to NIBRS. Historically, estimates were based on data contributed annually by law enforcement agencies that covered 90% or more of the U.S. population. With such a high coverage rate, estimation was a more straightforward process. Initially, as agencies continue to transition to the more comprehensive NIBRS collection method, the program will experience a period of lower participation (for 2021, 65% of population covered). The more robust and complex estimation process to account for unreported data will bridge this gap.

This year, you will notice more information about estimation as the UCR Program assures our users understand our NIBRS estimation process. One example: estimates from NIBRS will have confidence intervals (the mean of an estimate plus or minus the variation possible in that estimate) for the first time. However, estimates found to have a level of statistical uncertainty beyond established standards will not be published by the UCR Program.

[92] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 43 (of PDF):

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program provides a nationwide view of crime based on data submissions reported by law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The data submitted to various distinct collections, within the FBI’s UCR Program, detail criminal incidents as well as law enforcement data. For decades, several of these compilations have been published annually. Though each collection presents details of crime or law enforcement data based on data provided by participating agencies, the reports vary in context, participation, and publication criteria.

Crime in the Nation, 2023, includes data received from 16,334 law enforcement agencies that provided data through either the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) or the Summary Reporting System (SRS). These agencies represent 85.2 percent of agencies actively enrolled in the FBI’s UCR Program and cover a combined population of 315,761,680 (94.3 percent) inhabitants. Notably, every city agency covering a population of 1,000,000 or more inhabitants contributed a full 12 months of data to the FBI’s UCR Program in 2023.

[93] Paper: “Police Manipulations of Crime Reporting: Insiders’ Revelations.” By John A. Eterno, Arvind Verma, and Eli B. Silverman. Justice Quarterly, November 17, 2014. <www.tandfonline.com>

Social scientists have theorized about the corruption of crime reports (Bayley, 1983; Campbell, 1976). Yet, scant empirical research has examined the impact of modern policing methods on the accuracy of crime reporting. Our research uses an anonymous survey of 1,770 retired New York City police officers examining retirees’ experiences with crime report manipulations across their years of retirement. … Our research supports Bayley’s and Campbell’s theories. …

Whistleblowers have provided audiotapes indicating that crime reports are manipulated. Officers Adrian Schoolcraft, Adyl Polanco, Sergeant Robert Borrelli, and others produced ample evidence of manipulation. Indeed, Officer Schoolcraft’s allegations have since been confirmed by the department’s own “secret” internal investigation exposed by a reporter (Rayman, 2012). One example of the level of manipulation from Schoolcraft’s tapes is supervisors at roll calls instructing entire shifts of officers not to take robbery reports if victims are not willing to return to the station house—clearly violating department training and procedures.

Hospital data, available through 2006 on these issues, raises serious questions regarding manipulation particularly with respect to assaults, thus providing additional reasons for studying the phenomenon of crime reporting manipulation. New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene statistics indicate that in 1999 there were 25,181 visits to emergency rooms throughout the City for assault. In 2006, there were 47,779 visits. This represents a 90% increase in visits for assault while the NYPD reported a substantial decline. …

Using this database, we sent a request to participate in the survey—which included a unique link to the questionnaire in its body—via e-mail to the 4,069 NYPD retirees with operational e-mail addresses….

… [O]ur final sample size was fairly large—1,770 retired officers. The sample size adds assurance that the findings accurately reflect the experiences of actively retired officers. …

… Importantly, we also note that every officer in the study had considerable experience of working in different units of NYPD including work in a patrol (precinct) assignment at one time in their careers. Overall, the trends in the data are clear and completely in synch with trends at NYPD.

The large sample size and the distributions that comport with what limited information is available about NYPD personnel are indicators that social bias is probably not an issue and that the sample is somewhat representative of NYPD. …

To the specific question, “based upon your experience do you have personal knowledge of any instance in which crime reports were changed to make crime numbers look better than they were?”, 974 respondents stated that they were not aware of manipulation of crime statistics. However, 78 stated that they were aware of such manipulation 1–2 times; 309 stated they had knowledge of this being done 3–4 times and 371 stated 5 or more times.

[94] Article: “Retired Officers Raise Questions on Crime Data.” By William K. Rashbaum. New York Times, February 6, 2010. <www.nytimes.com>

More than a hundred retired New York Police Department captains and higher-ranking officers said in a survey that the intense pressure to produce annual crime reductions led some supervisors and precinct commanders to manipulate crime statistics, according to two criminologists studying the department.

[95] Article: “Brooklyn’s 81st Precinct Probed by NYPD for Fudging Stats; Felonies Allegedly Marked as Misdemeanors.” By Rocco Parascandola. New York Daily News, February 1, 2010. <www.nydailynews.com>

A Brooklyn precinct is under investigation for manipulating statistics to make its cops look like better crimefighters, the Daily News has learned. … Schoolcraft told The News the top brass are so concerned with numbers that one precinct lieutenant is known as ‘The Shredder’ because he’s often spotted destroying documents.

[96] Article: “Pressure Builds on City Police for Accuracy.” By Michael Matza, Craig R. McCoy, and Mark Fazlollah. Philadelphia Inquirer, November 15, 1998.

“Going down with crime”—downgrading major offenses to minor ones to polish the image of commanders and police commissioners and make the city look safer—has been a reflex in police station houses for decades. …

“Every commissioner told the troops that they wanted accurate coding—and none of them meant it,” said Chief Inspector Vincent R. DeBlasis, 60, a 39-year police veteran and a former chief of detectives. “It was all window dressing.”

“No one ever really got in trouble for going down with crime,” said Charles J. Brennan, 48, a 25-year police veteran and statistical specialist who is now deputy commissioner for science and technology. …

Eight months ago, John F. Timoney, a career New York policeman known as an apostle of numbers-driven policing, took over the department, and the tradition of “going down with crime” came under intense assault. …

In July, Timoney refused to submit crime data for the first six months of 1998 to the FBI for inclusion in a city-by-city survey. After his new auditing team uncovered hundreds of downgrades, Timoney said he had no faith in his own department’s statistics. …

Many law-enforcement experts think the problem is indeed widespread—though perhaps most severe in Philadelphia.

They say fudging has compromised the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program for decades and is a greater source of concern now than ever.

[97] Commentary: “Reducing Rape with an Eraser.” By Judith Riesman. Dr. Judith Riesman, September 12, 2006. <www.lifeissues.net>

U.S. News and World Report (April 24, 2000) said, “facing political heat to cut crime in the city, investigators in the New York PPD’s Sex Crime Unit sat on (thousands of) reports of rapes and other sexual assaults.” One officer stated; “The way crime was solved was with an eraser.”

In 2000 even the FBI admitted that one district “failed to report between 13,000 and 37,000 major crimes.” “A 2000 Philadelphia Inquirer report found from 1997–1999, of 300,000 sex crime reports, thousands of rapes got relabeled ‘investigation of persons’ or ‘investigation, protection, and medical examination’—non-crime codes.”

[98] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 3–4 (of PDF):

Caution to users

Data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data in this publication and those in prior issues of Crime in the United States. Because of differing levels of participation from year to year and reporting problems that require the FBI to estimate crime counts for certain contributors, some data may not be comparable from year to year. In addition, this publication may contain updates to data provided in prior years’ publications.

Page 40 (of PDF):

By understanding the strengths and limitations of each program, it is possible to use UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] and NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] to achieve a greater understanding of crime trends and the nature of crime in the United States. For example, changes in police procedures, shifting attitudes toward crime and police, and other societal changes can affect the extent to which people report and law enforcement agencies record crime. NCVS and UCR data can be used in complementary ways to explore why trends in reported and police-recorded crime may differ.

[99] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 5:

Total violent crime

Includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Excludes homicide because the National Crime Victimization Survey is based on interviews with victims.

[100] Webpage: “Terms & Definitions.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed January 15, 2025 at <ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov>

Simple assault

An attack or attempted attack without a weapon that results in no injury, minor injury (e.g., bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches, and swelling), or an undetermined injury requiring fewer than two days of hospitalization.

[101] Book: Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. By the Committee to Improve Research and Data on Firearms and the Committee on Law and Justice, National Research Council of the National Academies. Edited by Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie. National Academies Press, 2005.

Page 21: “The National Crime Victimization Survey … is widely viewed as a “gold standard for measuring crime victimization.”

Page 30: “Although the NCVS data do many things right, they are, like any such system, beset with methodological problems of surveys in general as well as particular problems associated with measuring illicit, deviant, and deleterious activities….”

NOTE: For facts about what constitutes a scientific survey and the factors that impact their accuracy, visit Just Facts Academy’s lesson on Deconstructing Polls & Surveys.

[102] Report: “Victimizations Not Reported to the Police, 2006–2010.” By Lynn Langton and others. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2012. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 10:

When national estimates are derived from a sample, as is the case with the NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey], caution must be taken when comparing one estimates to another estimate or when comparing estimates over time. Although one estimate may be larger than another, estimates based on a sample have some degree of sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several factors, including the amount of variation in the responses, the size of the sample, and the size of the subgroup for which the estimate is computed. When the sampling error around the estimates is taken into consideration, the estimates that appear different may, in fact, not be statistically different.

[103] Report: “How Crime in the United States Is Measured.” Congressional Research Service, January 3, 2008. <crsreports.congress.gov>

Pages 26–27:

Because the NCVS [National Crime Victimization Survey] is a sample survey, it is subject to both sampling and non-sampling error, meaning that the estimated victimization rate might not accurately reflect the true victimization rate. Whenever samples are used to represent entire populations, there could be a discrepancy between the sample estimate and the true value of what the sample is trying to estimate. The NCVS accounts for sampling error by calculating confidence intervals for estimated rates of victimization.238 For example, in 2000, the estimated violent crime victimization rate was 27.9 victimizations per 100,000 people aged 12 and older.239 The calculated 95% confidence interval240 for the estimated violent crime victimization rate was 25.85 to 29.95 victimizations per 100,000 people aged 12 and older.241

The NCVS is also subject to non-sampling error. The methodology employed by the NCVS attempts to reduce the effects of non-sampling error as much as possible, but an unquantified amount remains.242 Non-sampling error can result from respondents not being able to recall victimizations that occurred to them during the reference period. Non-sampling error can also occur when respondents do not report crimes to the interviewer. Respondents may not report crimes because they know the perpetrator or because they are victims of certain crimes frequently enough that they forget that they were victimized or they do not consider the victimizations important enough to report.243

[104] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 99:

Table 1. Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants …

2023 …

Population [=] 334,914,895

Violent crime [=] 1,218,467

CALCULATION: 334,914,895 people / 1,218,467 violent crimes = 275

[105] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 3:

Table 1. Number and rate of violent victimizations, by type of crime …

Total … 2023 [=] 6,419,060

Page 35:

Population of persons age 12 or older, by demographic characteristics …

Total … 2023 [=] 284,857,030

CALCULATIONS:

  • 6,419,060 DOJ-measured violent crimes / 1,218,467 FBI-measured violent crimes = 5.3
  • 284,857,030 people aged 12 and older / 6,419,060 violent crimes = 44

[106] Report: “Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization.” By Herbert Koppel. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1987. <www.ncjrs.gov>

Page 1:

Annual victimization rates alone do not convey the full impact of crime as it affects people. No one would express his or her concern by saying, “I am terribly afraid of being mugged between January and December of this year.” People are worried about the possibility that at some time in their lives they will be robbed or raped or assaulted, or their homes will be burglarized.

Annual rates can provide a false sense of security by masking the real impact of crime. Upon hearing that the homicide rate is about 8 to 10 per 100,000 population, one feels safe; after all, 1 chance in 10,000 is not very frightening. Actually, however, at recent homicide rates about 1 of every 133 Americans will become a murder victim; for black males the proportion is estimated to be 1 of every 30.1 Similarly, while 16 out of 10,000 women are rape victims annually, the lifetime chances of suffering a rape are much greater. …

The problem lies with people’s perception of the meaning of annual rates with respect to their own lives. If the Earth revolved around the sun in 180 days, all of our annual crime rates would be halved, but we would not be safer. …

Because of the assumptions involved in the calculations and because the data derive from a sample survey, the numbers presented in this report are estimates only; they should be interpreted only as indications of approximate magnitude, not as exact measures. Essentially they are calculated values of lifetime risk rather than descriptions of what has been observed.

[107] Report: “Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization.” By Herbert Koppel. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1987. <www.ncjrs.gov>

Page 2:

The estimates of lifetime likelihood of victimization are derived under the assumption that, throughout their lifetimes, people in the U.S. have incurred, and will continue to incur, criminal victimization at the same annual rates as were observed in the years 1975 through 1984.” …

Table 1: Lifetime likelihood of victimization

Percent of Persons Who Will be Victimized by Violent Crime Starting at 12 Years of Age

Total

Number of Victimizations

One or More

One

Two

Three or More

Violent Crimes, Total*

83%

30%

27%

25%

Violent Crimes, Completed*

42%

32%

9%

2%

* Includes rape, robbery, and assault.

CALCULATION: 27% of Americans victimized twice + 25% of Americans victimized three or more times = 52% of Americans victimized more than once

[108] NOTE: To maintain continuity over time, this chart uses the FBI’s older definition of rape, as detailed in the next footnote.

[109] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 8 (of PDF):

In 2013, the FBI’s UCR [Uniform Crime Report] Program initiated the collection of rape data under a revised definition within the SRS [Summary Reporting System]. The term “forcible” was removed from the offense name, and the definition was changed to “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Page 90 (of PDF): “Rape―The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Page 558 (of PDF):

In 2016, the FBI Director approved the recommendation to discontinue reporting of rape data using the UCR legacy definition beginning in 2017. However, to maintain the 20- year trend in Table 1, the rape total for the legacy definition is used to calculate the violent crime total.

Page 634 (of PDF): “Rape (legacy definition): The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”

[110] Chart constructed with data from:

Dataset: “Estimated Offenses, United States, 1960–2008.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services. Sent from the FBI to Just Facts on June 15, 2010.

Report: “1995 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 13, 1996. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1976–1995.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1996 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 20, 1997. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1977–1996.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1997 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 7, 1998. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1978–1997.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1998 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 12, 1999. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1979–1998.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1999 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 23, 2000. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1980–1999” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2000 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, July 27, 2001. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1981–2000.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2001 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 10, 2002. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1982–2001.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2002 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 8, 2003. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1983–2002.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2003 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 4, 2004. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate, 1984–2003.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2004 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 2, 2005. <www2.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1985–2004.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2005 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2006. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986–2005.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2006 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2007. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1987–2006.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2007 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2008. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1988–2007.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2008 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2009. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1989–2008.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2009 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2010. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1990–2009.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2010 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2011. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1991–2010.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2011 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2012. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1992–2011.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2012 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2013. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1993–2012.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2013 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2014. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1994–2013.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2014 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2015. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1995–2014.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2015 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2016. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1996–2015.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2016 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2017. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1997–2016.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2017 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2018. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1998–2017.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2018 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2019. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1999–2018.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2019 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2020. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1999–2018.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2020 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2021. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2001–2020.” <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “The Transition to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS): A Comparison of 2020 and 2021 NIBRS Estimates.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2022. <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “2022 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2023. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2003–2022.” <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2004–2023.” <www.justfacts.com>

[111] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 25: “Appendix Table 1. Estimates, Standard Errors, and 95% Confidence Intervals for Figure 1: Rate of Violent Victimization and Violent Victimization Reported to Police, 1993–2023”

[112] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 593–594 (of PDF):

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, law enforcement agencies can clear, or “close,” offenses in one of two ways: by arrest or by exceptional means. Although an agency may administratively close a case, that does not necessarily mean that the agency can clear the offense for UCR purposes. To clear an offense within the UCR Program’s guidelines, the reporting agency must adhere to certain criteria, which are outlined in the following text. (Note: The UCR Program does not distinguish between offenses cleared by arrest and those cleared by exceptional means in collecting or publishing data via the traditional Summary Reporting System.)

Cleared by Arrest

In the UCR Program, a law enforcement agency reports that an offense is cleared by arrest, or solved for crime reporting purposes, when three specific conditions have been met. The three conditions are that at least one person has been:

• Arrested.

• Charged with the commission of the offense.

• Turned over to the court for prosecution (whether following arrest, court summons, or police notice).

In its clearance calculations, the UCR Program counts the number of offenses that are cleared, not the number of persons arrested. The arrest of one person may clear several crimes, and the arrest of many persons may clear only one offense. In addition, some clearances that an agency records in a particular calendar year, such as 2022, may pertain to offenses that occurred in previous years.

Cleared by Exceptional Means

In certain situations, elements beyond law enforcement’s control prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender. When this occurs, the agency can clear the offense exceptionally. Law enforcement agencies must meet the following four conditions in order to clear an offense by exceptional means.

The agency must have:

• Identified the offender.

• Gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution.

• Identified the offender’s exact location so that the suspect could be taken into custody immediately.

• Encountered a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that prohibits the agency from arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender.

Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense. In the UCR Program, the recovery of property alone does not clear an offense. …

In the nation in 2023, 41.1 percent of violent crimes and 13.9 percent of property crimes were cleared by arrest or exceptional means. …

When considering clearances of violent crimes, 57.8 percent of murder offenses, 46.1 percent of aggravated assault offenses, 26.9 percent of rape offenses, and 27.6 percent of robbery offenses were cleared. …

Among property crimes, 14.4 percent of burglary offenses, 15.0 percent of larceny-theft offenses, and 8.2 percent of motor vehicle theft offenses were cleared. …

In 2023, 26.9 percent of arson offenses were cleared by arrest or exceptional means.

[113] Calculated with data from:

a) Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 3: “Table 1. Number and rate of violent victimizations, by type of crime … 2023 … Robbery [=] 731,620 … Aggravated assault [=] 1,273,200”

b) Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 638 (of PDF): Table 29. Estimated Number of Arrests, United States, 2023 … Rape [=] 18,886 … Robbery [=] 67,243 … Aggravated assault [=] 345,987”

CALCULATIONS:

  • 731,620 robberies / 67,243 arrests for robberies = 10.9
  • 1,273,200 aggravated assaults / 345,987 arrests for aggravated assaults = 3.7

[114] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2018.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 2021. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases. All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. …

They exclude persons who were released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. This report is based on NCRP data from 44 states…. In 2018, these states were responsible for 97% of all persons released from state prisons nationwide. Annually administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the NCRP obtains individual-level records from state departments of corrections on prisoners entering and leaving prison custody or community supervision. …

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before Initial Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2018

Most serious offense

Percent of total releases

Time served in prisona

Medianb

Mean

All offenses

100%

1.3 yrs.

2.7 yrs.

Violent

29.8%

2.4 yrs.

4.8 yrs.

Murder

1.7

17.5

17.8

Non-negligent manslaughterc

0.4

7

8.2

Negligent manslaughter

0.8

3.7

5.3

Rape

1.5

7.2

9.6

Other sexual assault

3.4

3.6

5

Robbery

7.4

3.2

4.8

Assault

11.6

1.4

2.5

Other violentd

2.3

1.5

3.5

Property

25.7%

13 mos.

21 mos.

Burglary

10.6

17

27

Larceny-theft

6.8

11

17

Motor-vehicle theft

1.5

11

15

Fraude

3.8

11

17

Other propertyf

3

12

20

Drug

24.6%

12 mos.

21 mos.

Possession

8.6

9

13

Trafficking

9.4

17

26

Other drugg

6.6

14

23

Public order

19.2%

13 mos.

21 mos.

Weapons

5.9

15

23

Other public orderh

13.3

12

20

Other/unspecified

0.7%

16 mos.

31 mos.

Number of releases

376,993

~

~

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Initial release does not refer to first-time offenders but to offenders’ first release from a given sentence (whether they are first-time offenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or less; those with missing values for most serious offense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 3,266 deaths in 2018.
~ Not applicable.
a Excludes time served in jail.
b The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers.
c Includes unspecified and other homicides.
d Includes kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, hit and run with injury, and other unknown violent offenses.
e Includes forgery and embezzlement.
f Includes arson, receiving and trafficking of stolen property, destruction of property, trespassing, and other unknown property offenses.
g Includes forging prescriptions, possession of drug paraphernalia, and other unspecified offenses.
h Includes DUIs/DWIs; court offenses; commercialized vice, morals, and decency offenses; liquor law violations; and other public-order offenses.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2018

[115] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2016.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2018. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases.

All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. They exclude persons who had been released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. …

Ninety-six percent of violent offenders released in 2016, including 70% of those sentenced for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, served less than 20 years before initial release from state prison. …

By offense type, the median time served was 13.4 years for murder, 2.2 years for violent crimes excluding murder….

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before First Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2016

Most Serious Offense

Time Served in Prisona

Medianb [Years]

Violent

2.4

Murderc

13.4

Note: … First release does not refer to first-time offenders but to offenders’ first release from a given sentence (whether they are first-time offenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or less; those with missing values for most serious offense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 2,755 deaths in 2016. …

a Excludes time served in jail.
b The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers.
c Includes non-negligent manslaughter. …

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2016.

[116] Calculated with data from the report: “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 34 States in 2012: A 5-Year Follow-Up Period (2012–2017).” By Matthew R. Durose and Leonardo Antenangeli. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2021. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

Among state prisoners released in 2012 across 34 states, 62% were arrested within 3 years, and 71% were arrested within 5 years (figure 1). Among prisoners released in 2012 across 21 states with available data on persons returned to prison, 39% had either a parole or probation violation or an arrest for a new offense within 3 years that led to imprisonment, and 46% had a parole or probation violation or an arrest within 5 years that led to imprisonment.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) used prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program and criminal history data to analyze the post-release offending patterns of former prisoners both within and outside of the state where they were imprisoned. This study randomly sampled about 92,100 released prisoners to represent the approximately 408,300 state prisoners released across 34 states in 2012. These 34 states were responsible for 79% of all persons released from state prisons that year nationwide. (See Methodology.)

Figure 1 Cumulative Percent of State Prisoners Released in 2012 Who Had a New Arrest, Conviction, or Return to Prison After Release, by Year Following Release

Page 10:

Table 10: Percent of State Prisoners Released in 34 States in 2012 Who Were Arrested Within 5 Years Following Release, by Type of Post-Release Arrest Offense Post-Release Arrest Offense … Percent … Homicide [=] 0.8 … Rape/sexual assault [=] 1.4 … Robbery [=] 4.8 … Assault [=] 21.6 …

The approximately 408,300 state prisoners released across 34 states in 2012 had an estimated 1,113,000 arrests during the 5-year follow-up period….” … “Recidivism patterns varied based on the specific types of offenses that prisoners were arrested for following release. During the 5-year follow-up period, 28% of all prisoners released in 2012 were arrested for a violent offense….

Page 25:

In this report, arrests for probation and parole violations were included as public order offenses. Excluding such arrests from the analysis would have a small impact on the recidivism rates. The percentage of state prisoners released across 34 states in 2012 who were arrested at least once within 5 years would be 69.0% if arrests for probation and parole violations were excluded and 70.8% if they were included. In other words, 97% of released prisoners who were arrested during the 5-year follow-up period were arrested for an offense other than a probation or parole violation.

CALCULATIONS:

  • 1,113,000 Total arrests / 408,300 prisoners = 2.7 per prisoner
  • 408,300 released prisoners × 0.8% homicide post-arrest charges = 3,266 new homicide arrests
  • 408,300 released prisoners × 1.4% rape/sexual assault post-arrest charges = 5,716 new rape arrests
  • 408,300 released prisoners × 4.8% robbery post-arrest charges = 19,598 new robbery arrests
  • 408,300 released prisoners × 21.6% assault post-arrest charges = 88,193 new assault arrests

[117] Calculated with data from the report: “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010.” By Matthew R. Durose, Alexia D. Cooper, and Howard N. Snyder. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

Overall, 67.8% of the 404,638 state prisoners released in 2005 in 30 states were arrested within 3 years of release, and 76.6% were arrested within 5 years of release…. Among prisoners released in 2005 in 23 states with available data on inmates returned to prison, 49.7% had either a parole or probation violation or an arrest for a new offense within 3 years that led to imprisonment, and 55.1% had a parole or probation violation or an arrest that led to imprisonment within 5 years.

Page 9:

Table 9: Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005, By Type of Post-Release Arrest Charge … Percent of released prisoners arrested within 5 years of release … Any offense [=] 76.6% … Violent [=] 28.6% … Homicide [=] 0.9 … Rape/sexual assault [=] 1.7 … Robbery [=] 5.5 … Assault [=] 23.0 … Other [=] 4.0 …

Note: Prisoners were tracked for 5 years following release. … When information on the arrest charge was missing in the criminal history records, the court disposition data were used to describe the charge.

Page 17:

The study excluded releases that were transfers to the custody of another authority, releases due to death, releases on bond, releases to seek or participate in an appeal of a case, and escapes from prison or absent without official leave (AWOL). Inmates whose sentence was less than 1 year were also excluded. The first release during 2005 was selected for persons released multiple times during the year.

CALCULATIONS:

  • 404,638 released prisoners × .9% homicide post-arrest charges = 3,642 new homicide arrests
  • 404,638 released prisoners × 1.7% rape/sexual assault post-arrest charges = 6,879 new rape arrests
  • 404,638 released prisoners × 5.5% robbery post-arrest charges = 22,255 new robbery arrests
  • 404,638 released prisoners × 23% assault post-arrest charges = 93,067 new assault arrests

[118] Report: “2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9-Year Follow-up Period (2005–2014).” By Mariel Alper, Matthew R. Durose, and Joshua Markman. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2018. <www.bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

Five in 6 (83%) state prisoners released in 2005 across 30 states were arrested at least once during the 9 years following their release. …

During each year and cumulatively in the 9-year follow-up period, released property offenders were more likely to be arrested than released violent offenders. …

The Bureau of Justice Statistics analyzed the offending patterns of 67,966 prisoners who were randomly sampled to represent the 401,288 state prisoners released in 2005 in 30 states.”

Page 5: “Among all released prisoners arrested within 9 years, about 5 in 6 prisoners (82%) were arrested within the 3-year follow-up period (not shown).”

Page 7: “Prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested nearly 2 million times during the 9 years following release … estimated 1,994,000 arrests during the 9-year period, an average of 5 arrests per released prisoner (table 4).”

Page 14: “For example, of the 44% of released prisoners who were arrested during their first year after release, 1 in 9 (5% of all released prisoners) had no additional arrests during the 9-year follow-up period.”

Page 17: “In other words, 99% of prisoners who were arrested during the 9-year follow-up period were arrested for an offense other than a probation or parole violation.”

[119] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 90 (of PDF):

Rape―The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

[120] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 38:

Prior to 2013, the UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] Program measured a more limited definition of forcible rape against women only, while the NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] measured a broader definition of rape against both sexes. Now NCVS and the UCR Program define rape analogously.

[121] Webpage: “Terms & Definitions.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed January 15, 2025 at <ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov>

Rape

Coerced or forced sexual intercourse. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category could include incidents where the penetration was from a foreign object such as a bottle. It includes attempted rape, threatened rape, male and female victims, and incidents involving victims and offenders who are the same sex or different sexes. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

[122] U.S. Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X, Section 920: “Rape and Sexual Assault Generally.” Accessed December 31, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Rape.—Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by—

(1) using unlawful force against that other person;

(2) using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person;

(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping;

(4) first rendering that other person unconscious; or

(5) administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or consent of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

[123] Report: “Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011.” By Matthew J. Breiding and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, September 5, 2014. <www.cdc.gov>

The questionnaire included behaviorally specific questions that assessed being a victim of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence over the respondent’s lifetime and during the 12 months before interview. A list of the verbatim questions used in the 2011 survey can be found at <stacks.cdc.gov>.

[124] “National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 2011 Victimization Questions.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 5, 2014. <stacks.cdc.gov>

Page 3:

Women and men may experience unwanted and uninvited sexual situations by strangers or people they know well, such as a romantic or sexual partner, friend, teacher, coworker, supervisor, or family member. Your answers will help us learn how often these things happen. Some of the language we use is explicit, but it is important that I ask the questions this way so that you are clear about what I mean. The questions we ask are detailed and some people may find them upsetting. The information you are providing will be kept private. You can skip questions you don’t want to answer and you can stop at any time.

I’m going to ask you about different types of unwanted sexual situations. In general, these are: unwanted sexual situations that did NOT involve touching and situations that DID involve touching. I will also ask you about situations in which you were unable to provide consent to sex because of alcohol or drugs, and about your experiences with unwanted sex that happened when someone used physical force or verbal pressure. …

Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications. This can include times when they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs or they were given drugs or alcohol without their knowledge or consent. Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault.

When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people have ever …

• had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}.

• {if male} made you perform anal sex, meaning they made you put your penis into their anus?

• made you receive anal sex, meaning they put their penis into your anus?

• put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: vagina}?1

• put their mouth on your anus?1

• made you put your mouth on their vagina or anus?1

• made you put your mouth on their penis?1

• put their fingers or an object in your [if female: vagina or} anus? …

1 Denotes a change in question wording compared to the 2010 NISVS survey.

[125] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 39:

The NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] includes, but the UCR Program’s SRS [FBI Uniform Crime Report Summary Reporting System] excludes, sexual assault (completed, attempted, and threatened), attempted robberies, verbal threats of rape, simple assault, and crimes not reported to law enforcement.

[126] Webpage: “Terms & Definitions.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed January 15, 2025 at <ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov>

Sexual assault

Sexual assault encompasses a wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. Includes attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender, with or without force. Includes grabbing or fondling and verbal threats.

[127] U.S. Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X, Section 920: “Rape and Sexual Assault Generally.” Accessed December 31, 2022 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(b) Sexual Assault.—Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) commits a sexual act upon another person by—

(A) threatening or placing that other person in fear;

(B) causing bodily harm to that other person;

(C) making a fraudulent representation that the sexual act serves a professional purpose; or

(D) inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is another person;

(2) commits a sexual act upon another person when the person knows or reasonably should know that the other person is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act is occurring; or

(3) commits a sexual act upon another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to—

(A) impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person; or

(B) a mental disease or defect, or physical disability, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person;

is guilty of sexual assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

[128] “National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 2011 Victimization Questions.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 5, 2014. <stacks.cdc.gov>

Page 3:

Sexual Violence Intro: Women and men may experience unwanted and uninvited sexual situations by strangers or people they know well, such as a romantic or sexual partner, friend, teacher, coworker, supervisor, or family member. Your answers will help us learn how often these things happen. Some of the language we use is explicit, but it is important that I ask the questions this way so that you are clear about what I mean. The questions we ask are detailed and some people may find them upsetting. The information you are providing will be kept private. You can skip questions you don’t want to answer and you can stop at any time.

I’m going to ask you about different types of unwanted sexual situations. In general, these are: unwanted sexual situations that did NOT involve touching and situations that DID involve touching. I will also ask you about situations in which you were unable to provide consent to sex because of alcohol or drugs, and about your experiences with unwanted sex that happened when someone used physical force or verbal pressure.

How many people have ever …

• exposed their sexual body parts to you, flashed you, or masturbated in front of you?

• made you show your sexual body parts to them when you didn’t want it to happen?

• made you look at or participate in sexual photos or movies?

• verbally harassed you while you were in a public place in a way that made you feel unsafe?

• kissed you in a sexual way when you didn’t want it to happen?

• fondled, groped, grabbed, or touched you in a way that made you feel unsafe?

Page 4:

Intro: Sometimes unwanted sexual contact happens after a person is pressured in a nonphysical way.

How many people have you had vaginal, oral, or anal sex with after they pressured you by…

• doing things like telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue, threatening to end your relationship, or threatening to spread rumors about you?

• wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy?

• using their influence or authority over you, for example, your boss or your teacher?

[129] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 39:

Second, the two programs measure an overlapping but nonidentical set of crimes. The NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] includes, but the UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] Program’s SRS [Summary Reporting System] excludes, sexual assault (completed, attempted, and threatened), attempted robberies, verbal threats of rape, simple assault, and crimes not reported to law enforcement.

[130] Report: “The Nation’s Two Measures of Homicide.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) are part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. …

Page 3:

SHRReporting is Voluntary …

SHRData collection methods … In most states, reports from individual law enforcement agencies are compiled monthly by state-level agencies and then forwarded to the FBI …

[131] Webpage: “NIBRS Estimation.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed January 1, 2025 at <bit.ly>

The UCR [Uniform Crime Report] Program has estimated crime statistics for the nation, its regions, and for states since the 1960s. Estimation is the statistical process which allows inferences to be made about an outcome of interest (e.g., the number of robberies in the United States) in a population, even if information about the outcome is only known for part of that population. With the UCR Program collecting crime data only through NIBRS [National Incident-Based Reporting System], estimates for the referenced geographic areas will—for the first time this year—be exclusively based on NIBRS data submitted for 2021. In addition, with the detailed NIBRS data, other inferences about crime will be available, e.g., age, sex, and race about victims and persons arrested, as well as more estimates for more offenses.

With careful planning and execution by the FBI, in conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a NIBRS Estimation Process was created in anticipation of the move to NIBRS. Historically, estimates were based on data contributed annually by law enforcement agencies that covered 90% or more of the U.S. population. With such a high coverage rate, estimation was a more straightforward process. Initially, as agencies continue to transition to the more comprehensive NIBRS collection method, the program will experience a period of lower participation (for 2021, 65% of population covered). The more robust and complex estimation process to account for unreported data will bridge this gap.

This year, you will notice more information about estimation as the UCR Program assures our users understand our NIBRS estimation process. One example: estimates from NIBRS will have confidence intervals (the mean of an estimate plus or minus the variation possible in that estimate) for the first time. However, estimates found to have a level of statistical uncertainty beyond established standards will not be published by the UCR Program.

[132] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 43 (of PDF):

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program provides a nationwide view of crime based on data submissions reported by law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The data submitted to various distinct collections, within the FBI’s UCR Program, detail criminal incidents as well as law enforcement data. For decades, several of these compilations have been published annually. Though each collection presents details of crime or law enforcement data based on data provided by participating agencies, the reports vary in context, participation, and publication criteria.

Crime in the Nation, 2023, includes data received from 16,334 law enforcement agencies that provided data through either the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) or the Summary Reporting System (SRS). These agencies represent 85.2 percent of agencies actively enrolled in the FBI’s UCR Program and cover a combined population of 315,761,680 (94.3 percent) inhabitants. Notably, every city agency covering a population of 1,000,000 or more inhabitants contributed a full 12 months of data to the FBI’s UCR Program in 2023.

[133] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 3–4 (of PDF):

Caution to users

Data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data in this publication and those in prior issues of Crime in the United States. Because of differing levels of participation from year to year and reporting problems that require the FBI to estimate crime counts for certain contributors, some data may not be comparable from year to year. In addition, this publication may contain updates to data provided in prior years’ publications.

Page 40 (of PDF):

By understanding the strengths and limitations of each program, it is possible to use UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] and NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] to achieve a greater understanding of crime trends and the nature of crime in the United States. For example, changes in police procedures, shifting attitudes toward crime and police, and other societal changes can affect the extent to which people report and law enforcement agencies record crime. NCVS and UCR data can be used in complementary ways to explore why trends in reported and police-recorded crime may differ.

[134] Report: “Victimizations Not Reported to the Police, 2006–2010.” By Lynn Langton and others. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2012. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

When crimes are not reported to the police, victims may not be able to obtain necessary services to cope with the victimization, offenders may go unpunished, and law enforcement and community resources may be misallocated due to a lack of accurate information about local crime problems. Understanding the characteristics of crimes unknown to police, victims who do not report crimes, and the reasons these crimes are not reported may help identify gaps in the provision of criminal justice services and inform police practice and policies. Using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, this report examines trends in the types of crime not reported to police, the characteristics of unreported victimizations, and the victims’ rationale for not reporting these crimes.

Page 4:

Victimizations Not Reported to the Police and the Most Important Reason They Went Unreported

Page 9:

Methodology

Survey coverage

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). …

The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of households in the United States. Once selected, households remain in the sample for 3 years, and eligible persons in these households are interviewed every six months for a total of seven interviews. New households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis to replace outgoing households that have been in sample for the 3-year period. The sample includes persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group dwellings, and excludes persons living in military barracks and institutional settings, such as correctional or hospital facilities, and the homeless. …

In 2010, about 147,000 persons age 12 or older from 82,000 households across the country were interviewed during the course of the year. From 2006 to 2010—the primary reference period for this report—a total of 701,000 persons from about 394,000 households were interviewed. This equates to an annual average of 140,000 persons age 12 or older in 79,000 households interviewed each year from 2006 to 2010.

Nonresponse and weighting adjustments

The 82,000 households that participated in the NCVS in 2010 represents a 92% household response rate. The person-level response rate—the percentage of persons age 12 or older in participating households who completed an NCVS interview—was 88% in 2010.

Estimates in this report use data from the 1994 to 2010 NCVS data files weighted to produce annual estimates for persons age 12 or older living in U.S. households. Because the NCVS relies on a sample rather than a census of the entire U.S. population, weights are designed to inflate sample point estimates to known population totals and to compensate for survey nonresponse and other aspects of the sample design.

[135] “The Detroit Sexual Assault Kit (SAK) Action Research Project (ARP), Final Report.” By Rebecca Campbell (Michigan State University) and others. November 9, 2015, Updated December 2015. <www.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–3:

Sexual violence is a pervasive social problem: national epidemiological data indicate that 18%–25% of women are sexually assaulted in their adult lifetimes (Black et al., 2011; Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Kilpatrick et al., 2007; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006).1 When victims turn to their communities for assistance after the assault, most are advised to have a medical forensic exam (MFE) (Campbell, 2008; Martin, 2005). The purpose of this exam is to provide health care to victims (IAFN, 2009; Ledray, Burgess, & Giardino, 2011; Lynch 2006), which includes: caring for injuries sustained in the assault, offering emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy (if applicable), and administering prophylaxis for sexually transmitted infections that might have been contracted in the assault (Department of Justice, 2013). In addition to these health care components, the medical forensic exam can include the collection of a sexual assault kit (SAK) to preserve the physical evidence from survivors’ bodies to aid in the prosecution of the crime (Campbell, Patterson, & Lichty, 2005; DuMont & White, 2007; Fry, 2007; Ledray, 1999; Martin, 2005). The process of collecting a SAK is time-consuming (usually four hours long) and highly invasive for victims, as it includes: plucking head and pubic hairs; swabbing the vagina, anus, mouth, and/or breasts to collect semen, blood, or saliva; and obtaining fingernail scrapings in the event the assailant was scratched during the attack.

After a SAK has been collected by a health care professional, it is taken into custody by law enforcement personnel. Police are then responsible for submitting the SAK to a forensic laboratory for testing, which includes screening the samples in the kit for whether they contain biological evidence (i.e., bodily fluids), and if so, then analyzing the samples for DNA (see Butler, 2005, 2010, 2012 for reviews).2 The resulting DNA profile can be uploaded to CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), the national forensic DNA database, which consists of reference DNA profiles from arrestees/convicted offenders and from samples obtained at crime scenes (Butler, 2005; Jobling & Gill, 2004; Stevens, 2001). The sample in the SAK is compared to those reference samples and if there is a match (termed a “hit”) then law enforcement personnel have a promising investigative lead as to the identity of the offender and/or to a pattern of repeat offending.

This multi-step process of collecting and analyzing sexual assault medical forensic evidence is long and arduous, particularly so for victims, who often characterize the experience as highly traumatic, one that leaves them feeling violated, blamed, depressed, and reluctant to seek further help (Campbell, 2005, 2009; Campbell & Raja, 2005). But for decades, rape survivors have endured the exam and evidence collection kit because they were told they had to (Martin, 2005), because they believed there was no other way law enforcement would take their case seriously (Parnis & DuMont, 2006), and/or because they wanted to keep other women safe (Patterson & Campbell, 2010). They assumed that the evidence in the sexual assault kit would be tested for DNA and the results would be utilized by the criminal justice system for the investigation and prosecution of the assault (Tofte, 2013). However, a growing number of media reports and social science studies suggest that for many rape survivors this is not, in fact, what happens. In both major urban cities and smaller jurisdictions, police frequently do not submit SAKs for forensic testing, and instead, the kit is typically placed in police property, unexamined and untested (Strom & Hickman, 2010).

In 1999, multiple media outlets reported that New York City had over 16,000 SAKs stockpiled—collected from victims, yet never tested by a crime lab (see The Weiner Report, 2002). Public outcry grew as it became clearer that several other major cities also had staggering numbers of untested SAKs.3 Human Rights Watch (2009) reported that the Los Angeles Police Department, Sheriff’s Department, and 47 other independent police departments in the county had 12,669 unprocessed SAKs in police storage facilities. In Illinois, only 1,474 of 7,494 sexual assault kits booked into evidence from 1995–2009 had been confirmed as tested (Human Rights Watch, 2010). Since then, large numbers of untested SAKs have been documented in major urban areas such as Houston (~4,000), San Antonio (~11,000), Cleveland (~4,000), as well as smaller cities such as Amarillo, Texas (~1,000) and Davenport, Iowa (~600).

Emerging social science data suggest these media reports may indeed be credible. In a NIJ-funded national survey of 1,692 law enforcement agencies, Lovrich and colleagues (2004) estimated that there were 169,000 rape cases dating back to 1982 that contained untested biological evidence. A more recent NIJ-funded study by Strom and Hickman (2010) surveyed 2,250 law enforcement agencies and estimated that 18% (27,595) of all unsolved rape cases since 2003 contained unsubmitted forensic evidence. Smaller-scale regional studies are yielding similar results. In a review of SAKs collected from adult victims in a Midwestern sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) program, Patterson and Campbell (2012) found that 41% were not submitted for analysis, and Shaw and Campbell (2013) documented that 41% of kits collected from adolescent victims were also not submitted to the crime lab.4

Pages iii–iv:

The first goal of this project was to assess the scope of the problem by conducting a census of all SAKs in police property (current to November 1, 2009). The census took 15 weeks to complete and revealed that there were 11,303 SAKs in police custody. Post-census review of property records indicated that 84 SAKs needed to be removed from the count (typically because the SAK did not contain sexual assault medical forensic evidence; the box had been used to store other types of crime scene evidence), thereby revising the census count to 11,219. Some of these kits (2,512) had laboratory ID numbers, indicating that they had been submitted for testing, but it was unclear how many had in fact been tested for DNA. The vast majority of the SAKs in police property (8,717) had not been submitted for forensic testing. …

Police personnel acknowledged that budget and staffing cuts compromised investigation quality such that “cutting corners” became normative. An analysis of 1,268 sexual assault police reports associated with SAKs that had not been submitted for testing revealed that most cases were closed after minimal investigational effort. In both the stakeholder interviews and in the actual police reports, law enforcement personnel expressed negative, victim-blaming beliefs about sexual assault victims. Rape survivors were often assumed to be prostitutes and therefore what had happened to them was considered to be their own fault. Adolescents were assumed to be lying, trying to avoid getting into trouble by concocting a false story about being raped. Police said that those who had been assaulted by friends and acquaintances had “got-what-they-got” because they had chosen to associate with the perpetrator. Case after case was labeled “a deal gone bad” or otherwise dismissed as “not really a rape,” and these attitudes directly affected law enforcement personnel’s decisions regarding whether to submit a rape kit for forensic testing.

[136] Paper: “Police Manipulations of Crime Reporting: Insiders’ Revelations.” By John A. Eterno, Arvind Verma, and Eli B. Silverman. Justice Quarterly, November 17, 2014. <www.tandfonline.com>

Social scientists have theorized about the corruption of crime reports (Bayley, 1983; Campbell, 1976). Yet, scant empirical research has examined the impact of modern policing methods on the accuracy of crime reporting. Our research uses an anonymous survey of 1,770 retired New York City police officers examining retirees’ experiences with crime report manipulations across their years of retirement. … Our research supports Bayley’s and Campbell’s theories. …

Whistleblowers have provided audiotapes indicating that crime reports are manipulated. Officers Adrian Schoolcraft, Adyl Polanco, Sergeant Robert Borrelli, and others produced ample evidence of manipulation. Indeed, Officer Schoolcraft’s allegations have since been confirmed by the department’s own “secret” internal investigation exposed by a reporter (Rayman, 2012). One example of the level of manipulation from Schoolcraft’s tapes is supervisors at roll calls instructing entire shifts of officers not to take robbery reports if victims are not willing to return to the station house—clearly violating department training and procedures.

Hospital data, available through 2006 on these issues, raises serious questions regarding manipulation particularly with respect to assaults, thus providing additional reasons for studying the phenomenon of crime reporting manipulation. New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene statistics indicate that in 1999 there were 25,181 visits to emergency rooms throughout the City for assault. In 2006, there were 47,779 visits. This represents a 90% increase in visits for assault while the NYPD reported a substantial decline. …

Using this database, we sent a request to participate in the survey—which included a unique link to the questionnaire in its body—via e-mail to the 4,069 NYPD retirees with operational e-mail addresses….

… [O]ur final sample size was fairly large—1,770 retired officers. The sample size adds assurance that the findings accurately reflect the experiences of actively retired officers. …

… Importantly, we also note that every officer in the study had considerable experience of working in different units of NYPD including work in a patrol (precinct) assignment at one time in their careers. Overall, the trends in the data are clear and completely in synch with trends at NYPD.

The large sample size and the distributions that comport with what limited information is available about NYPD personnel are indicators that social bias is probably not an issue and that the sample is somewhat representative of NYPD. …

To the specific question, “based upon your experience do you have personal knowledge of any instance in which crime reports were changed to make crime numbers look better than they were?”, 974 respondents stated that they were not aware of manipulation of crime statistics. However, 78 stated that they were aware of such manipulation 1–2 times; 309 stated they had knowledge of this being done 3–4 times and 371 stated 5 or more times.

[137] Article: “Retired Officers Raise Questions on Crime Data.” By William K. Rashbaum. New York Times, February 6, 2010. <www.nytimes.com>

More than a hundred retired New York Police Department captains and higher-ranking officers said in a survey that the intense pressure to produce annual crime reductions led some supervisors and precinct commanders to manipulate crime statistics, according to two criminologists studying the department.

[138] Article: “Brooklyn’s 81st Precinct Probed by NYPD for Fudging Stats; Felonies Allegedly Marked as Misdemeanors.” By Rocco Parascandola. New York Daily News, February 1, 2010. <www.nydailynews.com>

A Brooklyn precinct is under investigation for manipulating statistics to make its cops look like better crimefighters, the Daily News has learned. … Schoolcraft told The News the top brass are so concerned with numbers that one precinct lieutenant is known as ‘The Shredder’ because he’s often spotted destroying documents.

[139] Article: “Pressure Builds on City Police for Accuracy.” By Michael Matza, Craig R. McCoy, and Mark Fazlollah. Philadelphia Inquirer, November 15, 1998.

“Going down with crime”—downgrading major offenses to minor ones to polish the image of commanders and police commissioners and make the city look safer—has been a reflex in police station houses for decades. …

“Every commissioner told the troops that they wanted accurate coding—and none of them meant it,” said Chief Inspector Vincent R. DeBlasis, 60, a 39-year police veteran and a former chief of detectives. “It was all window dressing.”

“No one ever really got in trouble for going down with crime,” said Charles J. Brennan, 48, a 25-year police veteran and statistical specialist who is now deputy commissioner for science and technology. …

Eight months ago, John F. Timoney, a career New York policeman known as an apostle of numbers-driven policing, took over the department, and the tradition of “going down with crime” came under intense assault. …

In July, Timoney refused to submit crime data for the first six months of 1998 to the FBI for inclusion in a city-by-city survey. After his new auditing team uncovered hundreds of downgrades, Timoney said he had no faith in his own department’s statistics. …

Many law-enforcement experts think the problem is indeed widespread—though perhaps most severe in Philadelphia.

They say fudging has compromised the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program for decades and is a greater source of concern now than ever.

[140] Commentary: “Reducing Rape with an Eraser.” By Judith Riesman. Dr. Judith Riesman, September 12, 2006. <www.lifeissues.net>

U.S. News and World Report (April 24, 2000) said, “facing political heat to cut crime in the city, investigators in the New York PPD’s Sex Crime Unit sat on (thousands of) reports of rapes and other sexual assaults.” One officer stated; “The way crime was solved was with an eraser.”

In 2000 even the FBI admitted that one district “failed to report between 13,000 and 37,000 major crimes.” “A 2000 Philadelphia Inquirer report found from 1997–1999, of 300,000 sex crime reports, thousands of rapes got relabeled ‘investigation of persons’ or ‘investigation, protection, and medical examination’—non-crime codes.”

[141] Report: “The Sexual Victimization of College Women.” By Bonnie S. Fisher, Francis T. Cullen, and Michael G. Turner, December 2000. <www.ojp.gov>

Pages 2–3:

The National College Women Sexual Victimization (NCWSV) study, described in this report and funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), attempted to build on, and surmount the limitations of, existing research on the sexual victimization of college students by:

• Employing a nationally representative sample of college women. …

• Measuring sexual victimization using a two-stage process starting with “behaviorally specific” screen questions that attempted to cue respondents to recall and report to the interviewer different types of sexual victimization experiences they may have had. Those who reported a victimization were then asked a series of questions, called an incident report, to verify what type of sexual victimization, if any, had occurred. …

In addition, the research project contained a comparison component designed to assess how rape estimates that use the two-stage process (behaviorally specific questions and incident reports) compared with rape estimates drawn from a sample of college women who completed a survey based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The comparison component was funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). …

The resulting data furnish perhaps the most systematic analysis of the extent and nature of the sexual victimization of college women in the past decade.

Who was surveyed?

NCWSV study results are based on a telephone survey of a randomly selected, national sample of 4,446 women who were attending a 2- or 4-year college or university during fall 1996. The questions were asked between February and May 1997.

Page 4:

Each sample member was sent a letter describing the study and research protocol approximately 2 weeks prior to when a trained female interviewer called using a computer-aided telephone interviewing system.9 The response rate was 85.6 percent.10

Page 5:

A respondent may not answer “yes” to a screen question unless it is worded in a way that reflects the experience the respondent has had. To rectify this limitation, researchers have argued that sexual victimization should be measured with screen questions that are both numerous and detailed enough that respondents will not misunderstand what is being asked.11

NCWSV, therefore, used a series of behaviorally specific screen questions that sought to assess whether respondents had experienced a range of sexual victimizations. A behaviorally specific question, for example, is one that does not ask simply if a respondent “had been raped”; rather, it describes an incident in graphic language that covers the elements of a criminal offense (e.g., someone “made you have sexual intercourse by using force or threatening to harm you … by intercourse I mean putting a penis in your vagina”). The same logic can be used to ask about other forms of sexual victimization, such as sexual coercion or unwanted sexual contact.

Examples of the screen questions used in the NCWSV study are listed in exhibit 1. Each completed rape screen question asks the respondent about a different form of penetration in which force or the threat of harm was used.

Page 6:

Exhibit 1: Survey Screen Questions

Women may experience a wide range of unwanted sexual experiences in college. Women do not always report unwanted sexual experiences to the police or discuss them with family and friends. The person making the advances is not always a stranger, but can be a friend, boyfriend, fellow student, professor, teaching assistant, supervisor, coworker, somebody you meet off campus, or even a family member. The experience could occur anywhere: on or off campus, in your residence, in your place of employment, or in a public place. You could be awake, or you could be asleep, unconscious, drunk, or otherwise incapacitated. Please keep this in mind as you answer the questions.

Now, I’m going to ask you about different types of unwanted sexual experiences you may have experienced since school began in fall 1996. Because of the nature of unwanted sexual experiences, the language may seem graphic to you. However, this is the only way to assess accurately whether or not the women in this study have had such experiences. You only have to answer “yes” or “no.”

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone made you have sexual intercourse by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you? Just so there is no mistake, by intercourse I mean putting a penis in your vagina.

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone made you have oral sex by force or threat of harm? By oral sex, I mean someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your vagina or anus or your mouth or tongue making contact with someone else’s genitals or anus.

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone made you have anal sex by force or threat of harm? By anal sex, I mean putting a penis in your anus or rectum.

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone ever used force or threat of harm to sexually penetrate you with a foreign object? By this, I mean for example, placing a bottle or finger in your vagina or anus.

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone attempted but not succeeded in making you take part in any of the unwanted sexual experiences that I have just asked you about? For example, did anyone threaten or try but not succeed to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex with you or try unsuccessfully to penetrate your vagina or anus with a foreign object or finger?

• Not counting the types of sexual contact already mentioned, have you experienced any unwanted or uninvited touching of a sexual nature since school began in fall 1996? This includes forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, and rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes.

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone attempted but not succeeded in unwanted or uninvited touching of a sexual nature?

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone made or tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by making threats of nonphysical punishment, such as lowering a grade, being demoted or fired from a job, damaging your reputation, or being excluded from a group for failure to comply with requests for any type of sexual activity?

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone made or tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by making promises of rewards, such as raising a grade, being hired or promoted, being given a ride or class notes, or getting help with coursework from a fellow student if you complied sexually?

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone made or tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by simply being overwhelmed by someone’s continual pestering and verbal pressure?

Page 8:

Completed rape

Unwanted completed penetration by force or the threat of force. Penetration includes: penile-vaginal, mouth on your genitals, mouth on someone else’s genitals, penile-anal, digital-vaginal, digital-anal, object-vaginal, and object-anal.

Page 10:

Exhibit 3 reports the extent of rape found in the NCWSV study. As shown, 2.8 percent of the sample had experienced either a completed rape (1.7 percent) or an attempted rape incident (1.1 percent). …

Because some women were victimized more than once, the rate of incidents was higher than the rate of victims (35.3 per 1,000 students). Of the 123 victims, 22.8 percent (n = 28) were multiple-rape victims.

Page 15:

Do women define their victimization as a rape?

In each incident report, respondents were asked, “Do you consider this incident to be a rape?” For the 86 incidents categorized as a completed rape, 46.5 percent (n = 40) of the women answered “yes,” 48.8 percent (n = 42) answered “no,” and 4.7 percent (n = 4) answered “don’t know.” Among women who experienced other forms of sexual victimization (n = 1,318), it is noteworthy that 3.4 percent (n = 42) defined their sexual victimization as a rape and 1.1 percent (n = 14) answered “don’t know.”

Some scholars believe that the failure of women to define a victimization as a rape calls into question whether researchers have truly measured the crime of rape.27 Others suggest, however, that the true prevalence of rape is best measured by carefully worded questions on victimization surveys, such as NCWSV.28 Women may not define a victimization as a rape for many reasons (such as embarrassment, not clearly understanding the legal definition of the term, or not wanting to define someone they know who victimized them as a rapist) or because others blame them for their sexual assault.29 Which of these reasons is more or less correct cannot be definitively substantiated here because little systematic research has examined why women do or do not define as a rape an incident that has met the researcher’s criteria for a rape.

[142] Report: “The Sexual Victimization of College Women.” By Bonnie S. Fisher, Francis T. Cullen, and Michael G. Turner, December 2000. <www.ojp.gov>

Pages 11–14:

How do the NCWSV rape estimates compare with the rape estimates based on the National Crime Victimization Survey?

The sexual victimization literature contains a great deal of discussion about how rape estimates from the Nation’s federally sponsored victimization survey, NCVS, compare with estimates from other national surveys. This issue was examined through a comparison component.19 Like the main NCWSV study, the comparison study was conducted in the 1996–97 academic year, from late March to mid-May. The sample size was 4,432 college women; the response rate was 91.6 percent.20

Every effort was made to ensure that, aside from using different screen and incident report questions, the methodology used in both the main and comparison components was the same. …

However, in assessing the influence of different methodologies for measuring sexual victimization, the two studies differed on one methodological issue: the wording of the screen questions and the wording of the incident-level questions used to determine the type of incident. As previously described, the main study substantially modified the NCVS format to include a range of behaviorally specific screen questions. In contrast, the comparison component used a format that was closely aligned with the survey format of NCVS. All of the screen questions used in the comparison component came directly from NCVS, as did the incident-level questions used to determine what type of violent victimization the respondent had experienced.21

We should note, however, that the methodology used in the comparison component differs from that used in NCVS in one respect. In addition to structured responses to the survey questions, NCVS interviewers record a brief “verbatim description” of the victimization incident from those respondents who report experiencing rape or sexual assault. These verbatim responses are used to clarify what occurred in an incident and to code whether an incident should count as a sexual victimization. Thus, according to BJS staff:

In the NCVS, all questionnaires for which any rape or sexual assault code is entered in any of the pertinent items are reviewed to determine whether the codes reflect the written entries in the summaries. Where there are clear indications that the coded entries are not correct, they are edited, using guidelines developed by BJS and Bureau of Census staffs. This procedure has proven beneficial towards improving the NCVS estimates of rape and sexual assault by removing, to the extent possible, the discrepancies existing between the coded and written entries.22

In our comparison component study, the estimates were not adjusted using verbatim responses.23 We do not know how much this consideration affects the findings reported for the comparison component that is, again, based on NCVS methodology. None of the Criminal Victimization in the United States annual publications report how much the NCVS estimates are adjusted using verbatim responses, or whether such adjustments cause estimates to increase or decrease compared with estimates coded solely on respondents’ answers to the structured screen and incident-report questions.

NCVS defines rape as:

Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

This definition guided the classification of incidents in the comparison study as a completed rape, an attempted rape, or a threat of rape. In the Criminal Victimization in the United States series published by BJS, estimates for attempted rape and threats of rape are reported separately. The same is true in this report so as to compare rape estimates from the two components of the study.

How do the rape estimates from these two studies compare? It should be noted that studies that use behaviorally specific screen questions generally find higher levels of sexual victimization than those reported by NCVS.24 Most important, this finding has occurred in recent research using a national-level sample and behaviorally specific questions.25

Looking at exhibit 4, it is clear that estimates from the comparison study for completed rape, attempted rape, and threats of rape are considerably lower than the respective estimates from the main study. The percentage of the sample that reported experiencing a completed rape in the comparison study was 11 times smaller than the percentage of victims in the main component (0.16 percent compared with 1.7 percent). The attempted rape estimate from the comparison component was six times smaller than the attempted rape estimate (0.18 percent compared with 1.1 percent) from NCWSV. A similar pattern was evident for threats of rape; the estimate based on the comparison component was four times smaller than the NCWSV estimate (0.07 percent compared with 0.3 percent).

What accounts for these differences? Given the similarities between the two studies, it would appear that the differences most likely stem from the wide range of behaviorally specific screen questions used in the NCWSV study. Compared with the NCVS screen questions employed in the comparison component, the use of graphically worded screen questions in NCWSV likely prompted more women who had experienced a sexual victimization to report this fact to the interviewer. Their responses in the incident report determined whether those answering “yes” to a rape screen question were subsequently classified as rape victims.26 Even so, it appears that behaviorally specific screen questions are more successful in prompting women who have in fact been sexually victimized to answer in such a way that they are then “skipped into” the incident report by interviewers.

-------------

What is unknown, however, is whether behaviorally specific screen questions produce higher estimates of victimization in general or only higher estimates of sexual victimization. It is possible that, due to the sensitive nature of sexual victimization, graphically descriptive screen questions are needed to prompt reluctant victims to report their victimization to interviewers. The other possibility, however, is that a large set of behaviorally specific questions would result in more victim reports for any type of victimization, including property crimes and other forms of violent crime (e.g., aggravated assault, robbery). Future research on NCVS methodology might profit from exploring this issue.

[143] Paper: “Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Harassment.” By William O’Donohue and Adrian H. Bowers. January 2006. <onlinelibrary.wiley.com>

Determining whether allegations are true or false can be extremely difficult. And, at times, the investigator will simply not have enough evidence to deem with any sufficiently small margin of error that the charges are in fact true or false. …

These various sources of information support the idea that false allegations of sexual harassment do occur. Unfortunately, there is currently no way of knowing at what rate these false allegations occur.

[144] Book: False Allegations: Investigative and Forensic Issues in Fraudulent Reports. Edited by Brent E. Turvey, John O. Savino, and Aurelio Coronado Mares. Academic Press, 2018. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Chapter 9: “False Allegations of Sexual Assault.” By Michael McGrath, John O. Savino, and Brent E. Turvey. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 197:

Frequency of Cases

The number of falsely reported sexual assaults is unknown because statistics are not regularly collected, nor are they broadcast outside of law enforcement. Estimates are often a closely guarded secret, generally to conceal how common the problem is. Moreover, because investigating agencies may not correctly identify cases as false reports (for reasons previously stated), any publicly reported figures are going to be unreliably low.

The 2% Myth

There is no shortage of politicians, victim’s advocates, and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report rate for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2%. This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.

[145] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 99:

Table 1. Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants …

2023 …

Population [=] 334,914,895 …

Rape [=] 127,216

CALCULATION: 334,914,895 people / 127,216 rapes = 2,633

[146] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 3:

Table 1. Number and rate of violent victimizations, by type of crime …

Rape/sexual assault … 2023 [=] 481,020

Page 35:

Population of persons age 12 or older, by demographic characteristics …

2023 [=] 284,857,030

CALCULATIONS:

  • 481,020 DOJ-measured rapes or sexual assaults / 127,216 FBI-measured rapes = 3.8
  • 284,857,030 people aged 12 and older / 481,020 = 592 rapes or sexual assaults

[147] Report: “Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization.” By Herbert Koppel. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1987. <www.ncjrs.gov>

Page 1:

Annual victimization rates alone do not convey the full impact of crime as it affects people. No one would express his or her concern by saying, “I am terribly afraid of being mugged between January and December of this year.” People are worried about the possibility that at some time in their lives they will be robbed or raped or assaulted, or their homes will be burglarized.

Annual rates can provide a false sense of security by masking the real impact of crime. Upon hearing that the homicide rate is about 8 to 10 per 100,000 population, one feels safe; after all, 1 chance in 10,000 is not very frightening. Actually, however, at recent homicide rates about 1 of every 133 Americans will become a murder victim; for black males the proportion is estimated to be 1 of every 30.1 Similarly, while 16 out of 10,000 women are rape victims annually, the lifetime chances of suffering a rape are much greater. …

The problem lies with people’s perception of the meaning of annual rates with respect to their own lives. If the Earth revolved around the sun in 180 days, all of our annual crime rates would be halved, but we would not be safer. …

Because of the assumptions involved in the calculations and because the data derive from a sample survey, the numbers presented in this report are estimates only; they should be interpreted only as indications of approximate magnitude, not as exact measures. Essentially they are calculated values of lifetime risk rather than descriptions of what has been observed.

[148] Report: “Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011.” By Matthew J. Breiding and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, September 5, 2014. <www.cdc.gov>

This report examines sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization using data from 2011. …

NISVS [National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey] is a national random-digit–dial telephone survey of the noninstitutionalized English- and Spanish-speaking U.S. population aged ≥18 years. NISVS gathers data on experiences of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence among adult women and men in the United States by using a dual-frame sampling strategy that includes both landline and cellular telephones. The survey was conducted in 50 states and the District of Columbia; in 2011, the second year of NISVS data collection, 12,727 interviews were completed, and 1,428 interviews were partially completed. …

… The estimates presented in this report are based on completed interviews. …

The questionnaire included behaviorally specific questions that assessed being a victim of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence over the respondent’s lifetime and during the 12 months before interview. A list of the verbatim questions used in the 2011 survey can be found at <stacks.cdc.gov> …

Limitations

The findings of this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, the overall response rate for the 2011 NISVS survey was relatively low (33.1%). However, the cooperation rate was high (83.5%), and multiple efforts were made to reduce the likelihood of nonresponse and noncoverage bias. These included a nonresponse follow-up in which randomly selected nonresponders were contacted again and offered an increased incentive for participation as well as the inclusion of a cellular telephone sample. Second, although NISVS captures a broad range of self-reported victimization experiences, it is likely that the estimates presented underestimate the prevalence of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence (18). Victims who are involved in violent relationships or who have recently experienced severe forms of violence might be less likely to participate in surveys or might not be willing to disclose their experiences because of unresolved emotional trauma or concern for their safety, among other reasons. Third, a telephone survey might be less likely to capture some populations that could be at higher risk for victimization (e.g., persons living in nursing homes, military bases, prisons, or shelters, or those who are homeless). Fourth, self-reported data are vulnerable to recall bias because respondents might believe that events occurred closer in time than they did in actuality (i.e., telescoping), and this type of bias might particularly affect 12-month prevalence estimates. …

Table 1. Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of sexual violence victimization, by sex of victim—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011

Completed forced penetration

Women [=] 11.5% … 95% CI† [=] 10.3–12.7% …

Men [=] 0.7% … 95% CI [=] 0.5–1.1% …

† NOTE: For definition of the term “CI” and its implications, see Just Facts Academy’s lesson on “Margins of Error.”

[149] “National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 2011 Victimization Questions.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 5, 2014. <stacks.cdc.gov>

Intro: Some people are threatened with harm or physically forced to have sex when they don’t want to, for example, by being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence.

How many people have ever used physical force or threats to physically harm you to make you…

• have vaginal sex?

• {if male} perform anal sex?

• receive anal sex?

• put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: vagina}?

• put their mouth on your anus?

• make you put your mouth on their vagina or anus?

• make you put your mouth on their penis?

• put their fingers or an object in your {if female: vagina or} anus?

[150] Report: “Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011.” By Matthew J. Breiding and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, September 5, 2014. <www.cdc.gov>

The questionnaire included behaviorally specific questions that assessed being a victim of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence over the respondent’s lifetime and during the 12 months before interview. A list of the verbatim questions used in the 2011 survey can be found at <stacks.cdc.gov> …

Table 1. Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of sexual violence victimization, by sex of victim—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011

Attempted forced penetration

Women [=] 6.4% … 95% CI† [=] 5.6–7.4% …

Completed alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration …

Women [=] 9.3% … 95% CI† [=] 5.6–7.4% …

Men [=] 1.1% … 95% CI [=] 0.8–1.6%

† NOTE: For definition of the term “CI” and its implications, see Just Facts Academy’s lesson on “Margins of Error.”

[151] “National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 2011 Victimization Questions.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 5, 2014. <stacks.cdc.gov>

Intro: Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications. This can include times when they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs or they were given drugs or alcohol without their knowledge or consent. Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault.

When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people have ever …

• had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}.

• {if male} made you perform anal sex, meaning they made you put your penis into their anus?

• made you receive anal sex, meaning they put their penis into your anus?

• put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: vagina}?

• put their mouth on your anus?

• made you put your mouth on their vagina or anus?

• made you put your mouth on their penis?

• put their fingers or an object in your [if female: vagina or} anus? …

Intro: Some people are threatened with harm or physically forced to have sex when they don’t want to, for example, by being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence.

How many people have ever used physical force or threats to physically harm you to make you…

• {if male} try to make you have vaginal sex with them, but sex did not happen?

• try to have {if female: vaginal,} oral, or anal sex with you, but sex did not happen?

[152] Email From Just Facts to the CDC, September 27, 2018:

Do the lifetime prevalence rates in this report represent lifetime likelihoods of victimization, or are they snapshots of the populations at the time of the survey? In other words, do the lifetime prevalence rates adjust the survey data to account for the fact that many younger respondents will be victimized later in life?

[153] Email From the CDC to Just Facts, September 28, 2018:

Related to your most recent email, the estimates provided in the report were estimates at a single point in time and do not adjust for the possibility of future victimization.

[154] Report: “Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011.” By Matthew J. Breiding and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, September 5, 2014. <www.cdc.gov>

In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes; an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. …

The questionnaire included behaviorally specific questions that assessed being a victim of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence over the respondent’s lifetime and during the 12 months before interview. A list of the verbatim questions used in the 2011 survey can be found at <stacks.cdc.gov>

The specific types of sexual violence assessed included rape (completed or attempted forced penetration or alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration) and sexual violence other than rape, including being made to penetrate a perpetrator, sexual coercion (nonphysically pressured unwanted penetration, unwanted sexual contact (e.g., kissing or fondling), and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences (e.g., being flashed or forced to view sexually explicit media).

[155] “National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 2011 Victimization Questions.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 5, 2014. <stacks.cdc.gov>

Intro: Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications. This can include times when they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs or they were given drugs or alcohol without their knowledge or consent. Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault.

When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people have ever …

• had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}.

• {if male} made you perform anal sex, meaning they made you put your penis into their anus?

• made you receive anal sex, meaning they put their penis into your anus?

• put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: vagina}?

• put their mouth on your anus?

• made you put your mouth on their vagina or anus?

• made you put your mouth on their penis?

• put their fingers or an object in your [if female: vagina or} anus? …

Intro: Some people are threatened with harm or physically forced to have sex when they don’t want to, for example, by being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence.

How many people have ever used physical force or threats to physically harm you to make you…

• {if male} try to make you have vaginal sex with them, but sex did not happen?

• try to have {if female: vaginal,} oral, or anal sex with you, but sex did not happen?

[156] Report: “Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011.” By Matthew J. Breiding and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, September 5, 2014. <www.cdc.gov>

The questionnaire included behaviorally specific questions that assessed being a victim of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence over the respondent’s lifetime and during the 12 months before interview. A list of the verbatim questions used in the 2011 survey can be found at <stacks.cdc.gov>

The specific types of sexual violence assessed included rape (completed or attempted forced penetration or alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration) and sexual violence other than rape, including being made to penetrate a perpetrator, sexual coercion (nonphysically pressured unwanted penetration, unwanted sexual contact (e.g., kissing or fondling), and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences (e.g., being flashed or forced to view sexually explicit media).

[157] “National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 2011 Victimization Questions.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 5, 2014. <stacks.cdc.gov>

Page 3:

Sexual Violence Intro: Women and men may experience unwanted and uninvited sexual situations by strangers or people they know well, such as a romantic or sexual partner, friend, teacher, coworker, supervisor, or family member. Your answers will help us learn how often these things happen. Some of the language we use is explicit, but it is important that I ask the questions this way so that you are clear about what I mean. The questions we ask are detailed and some people may find them upsetting. The information you are providing will be kept private. You can skip questions you don’t want to answer and you can stop at any time.

I’m going to ask you about different types of unwanted sexual situations. In general, these are: unwanted sexual situations that did NOT involve touching and situations that DID involve touching. I will also ask you about situations in which you were unable to provide consent to sex because of alcohol or drugs, and about your experiences with unwanted sex that happened when someone used physical force or verbal pressure.

How many people have ever …

• exposed their sexual body parts to you, flashed you, or masturbated in front of you?

• made you show your sexual body parts to them when you didn’t want it to happen?

• made you look at or participate in sexual photos or movies?

• verbally harassed you while you were in a public place in a way that made you feel unsafe?

• kissed you in a sexual way when you didn’t want it to happen?

• fondled, groped, grabbed, or touched you in a way that made you feel unsafe?

Page 4:

Intro: Sometimes unwanted sexual contact happens after a person is pressured in a nonphysical way.

How many people have you had vaginal, oral, or anal sex with after they pressured you by…

• doing things like telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue, threatening to end your relationship, or threatening to spread rumors about you?

• wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy?

• using their influence or authority over you, for example, your boss or your teacher?

[158] NOTE: To maintain continuity over time, this chart uses the FBI’s older definition of rape, as detailed in the next footnote.

[159] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 8 (of PDF):

In 2013, the FBI’s UCR [Uniform Crime Report] Program initiated the collection of rape data under a revised definition within the SRS [Summary Reporting System]. The term “forcible” was removed from the offense name, and the definition was changed to “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Page 90 (of PDF): “Rape―The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Page 558 (of PDF):

In 2016, the FBI Director approved the recommendation to discontinue reporting of rape data using the UCR legacy definition beginning in 2017. However, to maintain the 20- year trend in Table 1, the rape total for the legacy definition is used to calculate the violent crime total.

Page 634 (of PDF): “Rape (legacy definition): The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”

[160] Chart constructed with data from:

Dataset: “Estimated Offenses, United States, 1960–2008.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services. Sent from the FBI to Just Facts on June 15, 2010.

Report: “1995 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 13, 1996. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1976–1995.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1996 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 20, 1997. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1977–1996.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1997 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 7, 1998. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1978–1997.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1998 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 12, 1999. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1979–1998.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1999 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 23, 2000. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1980–1999” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2000 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, July 27, 2001. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1981–2000.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2001 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 10, 2002. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1982–2001.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2002 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 8, 2003. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1983–2002.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2003 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 4, 2004. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate, 1984–2003.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2004 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 2, 2005. <www2.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1985–2004.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2005 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2006. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986–2005.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2006 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2007. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1987–2006.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2007 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2008. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1988–2007.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2008 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2009. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1989–2008.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2009 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2010. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1990–2009.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2010 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2011. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1991–2010.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2011 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2012. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1992–2011.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2012 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2013. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1993–2012.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2013 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2014. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1994–2013.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2014 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2015. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1995–2014.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2015 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2016. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1996–2015.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2016 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2017. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1997–2016.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2017 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2018. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1998–2017.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2018 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2019. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1999–2018.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2019 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2020. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1999–2018.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2020 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2021. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2001–2020.” <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “The Transition to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS): A Comparison of 2020 and 2021 NIBRS Estimates.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2022. <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “2022 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2023. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2003–2022.” <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2004–2023.” <www.justfacts.com>

[161] Report: “Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics.” By Howard N. Snyder. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, July 2000. <www.bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1: “The 1991 through 1996 NIBRS [National Incident-Based Reporting System] master files contain reports from law enforcement agencies in 12 States: Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia. These reports were scanned to identify incidents of sexual assault.”

Page 3: “Age profiles of sexual assault victims, by offense category: Forcible rape.”

Page 13:

Forcible rape (except “statutory rape”) The carnal knowledge of a person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will; or not forcibly or against the person’s will where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity. If force was used or threatened, the crime should be classified as forcible rape regardless of the age of the victim. If no force was used or threatened and the victim was under the statutory age of consent, the crime should be classified as statutory rape.

[162] Dataset: “Figure 2. Age Profiles of Sexual Assault Victims, by Offense Category.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, July 2000. <www.bjs.ojp.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[163] Report: “Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011.” By Matthew J. Breiding and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, September 5, 2014. <www.cdc.gov>

This report examines sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization using data from 2011. …

NISVS [National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey] is a national random-digit–dial telephone survey of the noninstitutionalized English- and Spanish-speaking U.S. population aged ≥18 years. NISVS gathers data on experiences of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence among adult women and men in the United States by using a dual-frame sampling strategy that includes both landline and cellular telephones. The survey was conducted in 50 states and the District of Columbia; in 2011, the second year of NISVS data collection, 12,727 interviews were completed, and 1,428 interviews were partially completed. …

… The estimates presented in this report are based on completed interviews. …

The questionnaire included behaviorally specific questions that assessed being a victim of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence over the respondent’s lifetime and during the 12 months before interview. A list of the verbatim questions used in the 2011 survey can be found at <stacks.cdc.gov> …

Among female victims of completed rape (completed forced penetration and completed alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration), this form of sexual violence was first experienced by an estimated 78.7% before age 25 years, by an estimated 40.4% before age 18 years (28.3% at ages 11–17 years and 12.1% at age ≤10 years), and by an estimated 38.3% at age 18–24 years (Figure 3). In addition, among female victims of completed rape, an estimated 15.2% first experienced this at age 25–34 years, an estimated 4.6% at age 35–44 years, and an estimated 1.5% at age ≥45 years. The case counts for men reporting lifetime completed rape were too small to produce statistically reliable estimates for all age categories. …

Limitations

The findings of this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, the overall response rate for the 2011 NISVS survey was relatively low (33.1%). However, the cooperation rate was high (83.5%), and multiple efforts were made to reduce the likelihood of nonresponse and noncoverage bias. These included a nonresponse follow-up in which randomly selected nonresponders were contacted again and offered an increased incentive for participation as well as the inclusion of a cellular telephone sample. Second, although NISVS captures a broad range of self-reported victimization experiences, it is likely that the estimates presented underestimate the prevalence of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence (18). Victims who are involved in violent relationships or who have recently experienced severe forms of violence might be less likely to participate in surveys or might not be willing to disclose their experiences because of unresolved emotional trauma or concern for their safety, among other reasons. Third, a telephone survey might be less likely to capture some populations that could be at higher risk for victimization (e.g., persons living in nursing homes, military bases, prisons, or shelters, or those who are homeless). Fourth, self-reported data are vulnerable to recall bias because respondents might believe that events occurred closer in time than they did in actuality (i.e., telescoping), and this type of bias might particularly affect 12-month prevalence estimates. …

Table 1. Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of sexual violence victimization, by sex of victim—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011

Completed forced penetration

Women [=] 11.5% … 95% CI† [=] 10.3–12.7% …

Men [=] 0.7% … 95% CI [=] 0.5–1.1% …

† NOTE: For definition of the term “CI” and its implications, see Just Facts Academy’s lesson on “Margins of Error.”

[164] “National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 2011 Victimization Questions.” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 5, 2014. <stacks.cdc.gov>

Intro: Some people are threatened with harm or physically forced to have sex when they don’t want to, for example, by being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence.

How many people have ever used physical force or threats to physically harm you to make you…

• have vaginal sex?

• {if male} perform anal sex?

• receive anal sex?

• put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: vagina}?

• put their mouth on your anus?

• make you put your mouth on their vagina or anus?

• make you put your mouth on their penis?

• put their fingers or an object in your {if female: vagina or} anus?

[165] Book: Introductory Econometrics: Using Monte Carlo Simulation with Microsoft Excel. By Humberto Barreto and Frank M. Howland. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Page 43:

Association Is Not Causation

A second problem with the correlation coefficient involves its interpretation. A high correlation coefficient means that two variables are highly associated, but association is not the same as causation.

This issue is a persistent problem in empirical analysis in the social sciences. Often the investigator will plot two variables and use the tight relationship obtained to draw absolutely ridiculous or completely erroneous conclusions. Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.

[166] Article: “Statistical Malpractice.” By Bruce G. Charlton. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, March 1996. Pages 112–114. <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>

Page 112: “Science is concerned with causes but statistics is concerned with correlations.”

Page 113: “The root of most instances of statistical malpractice is the breaking of mathematical neutrality and the introduction of causal assumptions into analysis without justifying them on scientific grounds.”

[167] Book: Regression With Social Data: Modeling Continuous and Limited Response Variables. By Alfred DeMaris. John Wiley & Sons, 2004.

Page 9:

Regression modeling of nonexperimental data for the purpose of making causal inferences is ubiquitous in the social sciences. Sample regression coefficients are typically thought of as estimates of the causal impacts of explanatory variables on the outcome. Even though researchers may not acknowledge this explicitly, their use of such language as impact or effect to describe a coefficient value often suggest a causal interpretation. This practice is fraught with controversy….

Page 12:

Friedman … is especially critical of drawing causal inferences from observational data, since all that can be “discovered,” regardless of the statistical candlepower used, is association. Causation has to be assumed into the structure from the beginning. Or, as Friedman … says: “If you want to pull a causal rabbit out of the hat, you have to put the rabbit into the hat.” In my view, this point is well taken; but it does not preclude using regression for causal inference. What it means, instead, is that prior knowledge of the causal status of one’s regressors is a prerequisite for endowing regression coefficients with a causal interpretation, as acknowledged by Pearl 1998.

Page 13: “In sum, causal modeling via regression, using nonexperimental data, can be a useful enterprise provided we bear in mind that several strong assumptions are required to sustain it. First, regardless of the sophistication of our methods, statistical techniques only allow us to examine associations among variables.”

[168] Book: Business and Competitive Analysis: Effective Application of New and Classic Methods (2nd edition). By Craig S. Fleisher and Babette E. Bensoussan. Pearson Education, 2015.

Pages 338–339: “One of the biggest potential problems with statistical analysis is the quality of the interpretation of the results. Many people see cause-and-effect relationships ‘evidenced’ by statistics, which are in actuality simply describing data associations or correlation having little or nothing to do with causal factors.”

[169] Textbook: Macroeconomics: A Contemporary Introduction (10th edition). By William A. McEachern. South-Western Cengage Learning, 2014.

Page 13:

Economic analysis, like other forms of scientific inquiry, is subject to common mistakes in reasoning that can lead to faulty conclusions. Here are three sources of confusion.

The Fallacy That Association Is Causation

In the past two decades, the number of physicians specializing in cancer treatment increased sharply. At the same time, the incidence of some cancers increased. Can we conclude that physicians cause cancer? No. To assume that event A caused event B simply because the two are associated in time is to commit the association-is-causation fallacy, a common error. The fact that one event precedes another or that the two events occur simultaneously does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. Remember: Association is not necessarily causation.

[170] Paper: “Resisting Rape: The Effects of Victim Self-Protection on Rape Completion and Injury.” By Jongyeon Tark and Gary Kleck. Violence Against Women, March 2014. <journals.sagepub.com>

Finally, given the impossibility of experimental research on this topic, it should be noted that our findings are necessarily based on observed associations between victim actions and assault outcomes, thereby precluding definitive conclusions about causal effects.

[171] Article: “Why Campuses Can’t Talk About Alcohol When It Comes to Sexual Assault.” By Robin Wilson. Chronicle of Higher Education, September 4, 2014. <chronicle.com>

At the beginning of every academic year, college freshmen are quickly introduced to two hallmarks of campus social life, drinking and hooking up.

But while statistics show that alcohol and sex can be a dangerous combination—at least half of students involved in alleged sexual assaults were drinking—campus officials are reluctant to put the two in the same sentence.

“The discussion of alcohol and sexual violence is the third rail of discourse,” says Christopher P. Krebs, a senior social-science researcher for the company RTI International who has studied the effects of alcohol on sexual assault. “It’s something no one wants to go near.”

Preventing sexual assault is at the top of the agenda on many campuses, but the people in charge of keeping students safe feel they can’t say much about alcohol, even though it is a common element in many incidents. In discussing the dangers of sexual assault, administrators fear that if they counsel students to drink less, young women who get drunk and are assaulted will be blamed—and blame themselves. They may then not report the attacks to their colleges, and not get the help they need.

[172] Paper: “Correlates of Rape While Intoxicated in a National Sample of College Women.” By Meichun Mohler-Kuo and others. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, January 4, 2015. <www.jsad.com>

Method: The study utilizes data from 119 schools participating in three Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study surveys. The analytic sample of randomly selected students includes 8,567 women in the 1997 survey, 8,425 in the 1999 survey, and 6,988 in the 2001 survey.

Results: Roughly one in 20 (4.7%) women reported being raped. Nearly three quarters (72%) of the victims experienced rape while intoxicated. Women who were under 21, were white, resided in sorority houses, used illicit drugs, drank heavily in high school and attended colleges with high rates of heavy episodic drinking were at higher risk of rape while intoxicated. …

The present study indicates that alcohol use is a central factor in most college rapes. Paradoxically, few rape preventive interventions focus on alcohol use. Bachar and Koss (2001) reviewed 15 university-based rape preventive interventions conducted between 1994 and 1999. Only three included references to alcohol use. …

First, the CAS [College Alcohol Study] is subject to the limitations of self-report surveys. Such surveys, however, have been widely used and are considered generally valid in examining alcohol-related responses….

… The direction of the association of rape and drinking is therefore undetermined, and the findings of the present study should be interpreted with caution. …

Third, potential bias may have been introduced through nonresponse. Several procedures, however, were used to test for potential bias from nonresponse and found it to have no effect on the findings.

[173] Report: “Estimate of the Incidence of Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault in the U.S.” By Adam Negrusz (PhD), Matthew Juhascik (PhD), and R.E. Gaensslen (PhD). University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of Biopharmaceutical Sciences, June 2, 2005. <www.ncjrs.gov>

The term drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) has been recently coined to describe victims who were given a drug by an assailant and subsequently sexually assaulted. …

Four clinics were provided with sexual assault kits and asked to enroll sexual assault complainants. Subjects provided two urine specimens, a hair specimen and completed a questionnaire describing the assault, as well as any drugs they were using. The three specimens were then analyzed to evaluate the self-reporting of illegal drugs and the number of drugs found in the subjects.

A total of 144 subjects were enrolled and the drugs analyzed for were found in 61.8% of the subjects with 4.9% positive for the classic “date-rape” drugs. For the evaluation of the validity of self-reporting of drug use, three drugs were employed; marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamines. We hypothesized that sexual assault complainants would be more truthful in their reporting than other populations studied. However, in this study, subjects’ positive for these drugs reported their usage approximately 40% of the time. …

This study was developed to correct the problems in the previous study by accepting subjects without any bias. Urine and hair specimens were then analyzed for approximately 45 drugs that have either been detected in sexual assault victims, or whose pharmacology could be exploited for DFSA. Each case was then analyzed based on the subject’s description of the assault, the drugs they admitted to using, and the toxicology analysis. …

An IRB [Institutional Review Board]-approved, multi-jurisdictional study was conducted that included four regionally diverse clinics. The clinics were located in Texas, California, Minnesota, and Washington State. Each clinic was provided with sexual assault kits and asked to enroll willing sexual assault complainants. When a subject was enrolled, a urine specimen was initially provided. One week later, the subject was asked to provide an additional urine specimen as well as a hair specimen. The subject then completed a questionnaire describing the details about the alleged assault, as well as any illegal, prescription or OTC drugs they were using. …

… The racial profile of the enrolled subjects correlates well with the census data for the U.S. The ages of the subjects ranged from 18 to 56 years of age, with a mean of 26.6 years, which corresponded well with previous studies on sexual assault complainants. Only 41% of the enrolled subjects returned for the second visit, which was considerably lower than desired.

The analyzed drugs were found in 61.8% of the subjects with 4.9% positive for the classic “date-rape” drugs. For the evaluation of the validity of self-reporting of drug use, three drugs were employed; marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamines. These were chosen as they would not normally be given surreptitiously, thus the subject had to willingly take the drug. …

Drugs of Abuse … This list includes: amphetamines, marijuana, cocaine, PCP, and opiates. …

A multiple site study was conducted to further identify if DFSA is as prevalent as the news media has stated. Previous studies on the prevalence of DFSA have been marred by biased sampling methods or have been lacking toxicological analyses to support sexual assault complainant statements. This study has attempted to correct both of these problems by accepting all sexual assault complainants and analyzing their urine and hair for a multitude of drugs. This sampling method is in accord with the epidemiologically correct definition of prevalence. The drugs were chosen based on a report by a committee assigned to the task of determining drugs that have either been implicated in DFSA, or whose pharmacology readily lends it to be used to incapacitate a potential victim. …

The main hypothesis for this study was that the prevalence of the classic “date-rape” drugs (flunitrazepam, clonazepam, GHB [Gamma-hydroxybutyrate], ketamine, and scopolamine) would be low for the enrolled subjects. This was proven as only 4.9% of the enrolled subjects were positive for the above drugs. Of these drugs, clonazepam was only found in subject’s who admitted to having a prescription for it. GHB, ketamine, and scopolamine were never found in any subject, while flunitrazepam was found in several subjects, some of whom were positive on both visits. Therefore, most of the subject’s positive for these drugs had taken them by their own accord and not received them surreptitiously. However, as stated above, due to GHB having endogenous levels in the body, it was difficult to determine if GHB was given to subjects who reported greater than 12 hours after the alleged assault. It is possible that some of the subjects who believed they were given a drug were given GHB, but did not report to the clinic quickly enough for our analysis to detect quantities above previously established endogenous levels. This is a problem in DFSA that is not unique to this study and thus should not affect the results from this study.

[174] Paper: “Sexuality, Substance Use, and Susceptibility to Victimization: Risk for Rape and Sexual Coercion in a Prospective Study of College Women.” By Terri L. Messman-Moore and others. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, March 4, 2008. <journals.sagepub.com>

Participants were 339 college women attending a midsized public university in the Midwest. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 22 (M = 19.18, SD = 1.07). Women were recruited through newspaper advertisements, flyers, and class announcements to take part in an 8-month prospective study on “College Women’s Life Experiences.” Of these, approximately two-thirds (n = 217) received monetary payment for their participation. The remaining participants were recruited from the Introduction to Psychology research pool and received research participation credit for the first two sessions. …

… Rape was defined as unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration obtained through threats, or the use of force, or because the victim was unable to consent or resist due to alcohol or drug use. …

… Of women who completed all four sessions and had complete victimization data (N = 274), the vast majority 78.8% (n = 216), did not report rape or verbal sexual coercion during the academic year. However, 9.5% (n = 26) did report at least one rape experience, and 11.7% (n = 32) reported at least one experience of verbal sexual coercion (in the absence of rape) during the 8-month study (at Time 2, 3 or 4). The majority of the assaults classified as rape were substance-related (88%, n = 23); 69% (n = 18) were due to the respondent’s inability to consent or resist due to her use of alcohol or substances in the absence of force, 19% (n = 5) were due to a combination of substance-related impairment and force or threats of force, and 12% (n = 3) were due to threats or use of force in the absence of substance-related impairment.

[175] Paper: “The Involvement of Drugs and Alcohol in Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.” By Caryl M. Beynon. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, July 1, 2008. <journals.sagepub.com>

Key Points of the Research Review

• The only robust estimate shows that only 2% of instances of alleged drug-facilitated sexual assault were due to covert drug administration.

• Other reviewed articles failed to remove voluntary drug and/or alcohol consumption from their cohort and their estimates were biased.

• Results of this review show that voluntary drug and/or alcohol consumption increases the risk of being the victim of a sexual assault.

• Scientific reports are drawing misleading conclusions about drug-facilitated sexual assault and are inflating concern regarding the magnitude of covert drug administration. …

The consumption of alcohol and/or drugs either lowers a person’s inhibitions and affects their judgment, and thus renders them more susceptible to sexual assault, or the victim becomes so inebriated that they are unable to consent to sexual activity at all.

[176] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 593–594 (of PDF):

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, law enforcement agencies can clear, or “close,” offenses in one of two ways: by arrest or by exceptional means. Although an agency may administratively close a case, that does not necessarily mean that the agency can clear the offense for UCR purposes. To clear an offense within the UCR Program’s guidelines, the reporting agency must adhere to certain criteria, which are outlined in the following text. (Note: The UCR Program does not distinguish between offenses cleared by arrest and those cleared by exceptional means in collecting or publishing data via the traditional Summary Reporting System.)

Cleared by Arrest

In the UCR Program, a law enforcement agency reports that an offense is cleared by arrest, or solved for crime reporting purposes, when three specific conditions have been met. The three conditions are that at least one person has been:

• Arrested.

• Charged with the commission of the offense.

• Turned over to the court for prosecution (whether following arrest, court summons, or police notice).

In its clearance calculations, the UCR Program counts the number of offenses that are cleared, not the number of persons arrested. The arrest of one person may clear several crimes, and the arrest of many persons may clear only one offense. In addition, some clearances that an agency records in a particular calendar year, such as 2022, may pertain to offenses that occurred in previous years.

Cleared by Exceptional Means

In certain situations, elements beyond law enforcement’s control prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender. When this occurs, the agency can clear the offense exceptionally. Law enforcement agencies must meet the following four conditions in order to clear an offense by exceptional means.

The agency must have:

• Identified the offender.

• Gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution.

• Identified the offender’s exact location so that the suspect could be taken into custody immediately.

• Encountered a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that prohibits the agency from arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender.

Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense. In the UCR Program, the recovery of property alone does not clear an offense. …

When considering clearances of violent crimes, 57.8 percent of murder offenses, 46.1 percent of aggravated assault offenses, 26.9 percent of rape offenses, and 27.6 percent of robbery offenses were cleared.

[177] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2018.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 2021. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases. All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. …

They exclude persons who were released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. This report is based on NCRP data from 44 states…. In 2018, these states were responsible for 97% of all persons released from state prisons nationwide. Annually administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the NCRP obtains individual-level records from state departments of corrections on prisoners entering and leaving prison custody or community supervision. …

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before Initial Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2018

Most serious offense

Percent of total releases

Time served in prisona

Medianb

Mean

All offenses

100%

1.3 yrs.

2.7 yrs.

Violent

29.8%

2.4 yrs.

4.8 yrs.

Murder

1.7

17.5

17.8

Non-negligent manslaughterc

0.4

7

8.2

Negligent manslaughter

0.8

3.7

5.3

Rape

1.5

7.2

9.6

Other sexual assault

3.4

3.6

5

Robbery

7.4

3.2

4.8

Assault

11.6

1.4

2.5

Other violentd

2.3

1.5

3.5

Property

25.7%

13 mos.

21 mos.

Burglary

10.6

17

27

Larceny-theft

6.8

11

17

Motor-vehicle theft

1.5

11

15

Fraude

3.8

11

17

Other propertyf

3

12

20

Drug

24.6%

12 mos.

21 mos.

Possession

8.6

9

13

Trafficking

9.4

17

26

Other drugg

6.6

14

23

Public order

19.2%

13 mos.

21 mos.

Weapons

5.9

15

23

Other public orderh

13.3

12

20

Other/unspecified

0.7%

16 mos.

31 mos.

Number of releases

376,993

~

~

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Initial release does not refer to first-time offenders but to offenders’ first release from a given sentence (whether they are first-time offenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or less; those with missing values for most serious offense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 3,266 deaths in 2018.
~ Not applicable.
a Excludes time served in jail.
b The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers.
c Includes unspecified and other homicides.
d Includes kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, hit and run with injury, and other unknown violent offenses.
e Includes forgery and embezzlement.
f Includes arson, receiving and trafficking of stolen property, destruction of property, trespassing, and other unknown property offenses.
g Includes forging prescriptions, possession of drug paraphernalia, and other unspecified offenses.
h Includes DUIs/DWIs; court offenses; commercialized vice, morals, and decency offenses; liquor law violations; and other public-order offenses.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2018

[178] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2016.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2018. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases.

All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. They exclude persons who had been released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. …

Ninety-six percent of violent offenders released in 2016, including 70% of those sentenced for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, served less than 20 years before initial release from state prison. …

By offense type, the median time served was 13.4 years for murder, 2.2 years for violent crimes excluding murder….

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before First Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2016

Most Serious Offense

Time Served in Prisona

Medianb [Years]

Violent

2.4

Murderc

13.4

Note: … First release does not refer to first-time offenders but to offenders’ first release from a given sentence (whether they are first-time offenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or less; those with missing values for most serious offense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 2,755 deaths in 2016. …

a Excludes time served in jail.
b The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers.
c Includes non-negligent manslaughter. …

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2016.

[179] Report: “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from State Prison: A 9-Year Follow-Up (2005–14).” By Mariel Alper and Matthew R. Durose. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2019. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

Among persons released from state prisons in 2005 across 30 states after serving a sentence for rape or sexual assault, 8% were arrested for rape or sexual assault during the 9 years after their release. Overall, 67% of sex offenders released in 2005 were arrested at least once for any type of crime during the 9-year follow-up period.1

Released sex offenders were more than three times as likely as other released prisoners to be arrested for rape or sexual assault (7.7% versus 2.3%).”

1 For this report, “sex offenders” refers to released prisoners whose most serious commitment offense was rape or sexual assault.

[180] Ruling: Coker v. Georgia. U.S. Supreme Court, June 29, 1977. Decided 7–2. Majority: White, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, and Stevens. Concurring: Brennan, Marshall, Powell. Dissenting: Burger, Rehnquist. <caselaw.findlaw.com>

Majority:

We have concluded that a sentence of death is grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment for the crime of rape and is therefore forbidden by the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment.4

Rape is without doubt deserving of serious punishment; but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, it does not compare with murder, which does involve the unjustified taking of human life. Although it may be accompanied by another crime, rape by definition does not include the death of or even the serious injury to another person.13 The murderer kills; the rapist, if no more than that, does not. Life is over for the victim of the murderer; for the rape victim, life may not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is not over and normally is not beyond repair. We have the abiding conviction that the death penalty, which “is unique in its severity and irrevocability,” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S., at 187, is an excessive penalty for the rapist who, as such, does not take human life.

[181] Book: Introductory Econometrics: Using Monte Carlo Simulation with Microsoft Excel. By Humberto Barreto and Frank M. Howland. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Page 43:

Association Is Not Causation

A second problem with the correlation coefficient involves its interpretation. A high correlation coefficient means that two variables are highly associated, but association is not the same as causation.

This issue is a persistent problem in empirical analysis in the social sciences. Often the investigator will plot two variables and use the tight relationship obtained to draw absolutely ridiculous or completely erroneous conclusions. Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.

[182] Article: “Statistical Malpractice.” By Bruce G. Charlton. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, March 1996. Pages 112–114. <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>

Page 112: “Science is concerned with causes but statistics is concerned with correlations.”

Page 113: “The root of most instances of statistical malpractice is the breaking of mathematical neutrality and the introduction of causal assumptions into analysis without justifying them on scientific grounds.”

[183] Book: Regression With Social Data: Modeling Continuous and Limited Response Variables. By Alfred DeMaris. John Wiley & Sons, 2004.

Page 9:

Regression modeling of nonexperimental data for the purpose of making causal inferences is ubiquitous in the social sciences. Sample regression coefficients are typically thought of as estimates of the causal impacts of explanatory variables on the outcome. Even though researchers may not acknowledge this explicitly, their use of such language as impact or effect to describe a coefficient value often suggest a causal interpretation. This practice is fraught with controversy….

Page 12:

Friedman … is especially critical of drawing causal inferences from observational data, since all that can be “discovered,” regardless of the statistical candlepower used, is association. Causation has to be assumed into the structure from the beginning. Or, as Friedman … says: “If you want to pull a causal rabbit out of the hat, you have to put the rabbit into the hat.” In my view, this point is well taken; but it does not preclude using regression for causal inference. What it means, instead, is that prior knowledge of the causal status of one’s regressors is a prerequisite for endowing regression coefficients with a causal interpretation, as acknowledged by Pearl 1998.

Page 13:

In sum, causal modeling via regression, using nonexperimental data, can be a useful enterprise provided we bear in mind that several strong assumptions are required to sustain it. First, regardless of the sophistication of our methods, statistical techniques only allow us to examine associations among variables.

[184] Book: Business and Competitive Analysis: Effective Application of New and Classic Methods (2nd edition). By Craig S. Fleisher and Babette E. Bensoussan. Pearson Education, 2015.

Pages 338–339: “One of the biggest potential problems with statistical analysis is the quality of the interpretation of the results. Many people see cause-and-effect relationships ‘evidenced’ by statistics, which are in actuality simply describing data associations or correlation having little or nothing to do with causal factors.”

[185] Textbook: Macroeconomics: A Contemporary Introduction (10th edition). By William A. McEachern. South-Western Cengage Learning, 2014.

Page 13:

Economic analysis, like other forms of scientific inquiry, is subject to common mistakes in reasoning that can lead to faulty conclusions. Here are three sources of confusion.

The Fallacy That Association Is Causation

In the past two decades, the number of physicians specializing in cancer treatment increased sharply. At the same time, the incidence of some cancers increased. Can we conclude that physicians cause cancer? No. To assume that event A caused event B simply because the two are associated in time is to commit the association-is-causation fallacy, a common error. The fact that one event precedes another or that the two events occur simultaneously does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. Remember: Association is not necessarily causation.

[186] Paper: “Resisting Rape: The Effects of Victim Self-Protection on Rape Completion and Injury.” By Jongyeon Tark and Gary Kleck. Violence Against Women, March 2014. <journals.sagepub.com>

Finally, given the impossibility of experimental research on this topic, it should be noted that our findings are necessarily based on observed associations between victim actions and assault outcomes, thereby precluding definitive conclusions about causal effects.

[187] Paper: “Explaining Victim Self-Protective Behavior Effects on Crime Incident Outcomes: A Test of Opportunity Theory.” By Rob T. Guerette and Shannon A. Santana. Crime & Delinquency, April 2010. Pages 198–226. <journals.sagepub.com>

Page 198:

Prior research on victim self-protective behavior (VSPB) has largely been void of a theoretical basis. Accordingly, it remains unclear why it would be expected that victim actions might mitigate crime incident outcomes or under which circumstances such actions might be most successful. Using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey for periods 1992 to 2004, this study uses a nested logistic regression analysis to test the predictive utility of opportunity theory in explaining outcomes of VSPB during incidents of robbery and rape. The results suggest that opportunity theory provides a useful framework for understanding the effect of victim resistance on crime outcomes. Greater levels of victim resistance increase the effort needed by offenders, resulting in some cases in a 93% and 92% decrease in the odds of a robbery and rape being completed, respectively, compared to when no resistance is used.

Pages 200–201:

Forceful physical resistance refers to “active aggressive behaviors (e.g., wrestling, punching, biting, scratching, kicking, using a weapon, executing martial arts techniques) enacted by the victim directly against the offender to stop an attack” (Ullman, 1997, p. 193). In general, the majority of studies have found that forceful physical self-protective behaviors are effective in avoiding rape completion….

Forceful verbal resistance refers to “active verbal strategies aimed at scaring the offender and/or attracting outside help” (Ullman, 1997, p. 194). Examples include screaming or yelling to scare the offender or to attract outside help and threatening the offender. Numerous studies have found forceful verbal self-protective behaviors to be effective in rape avoidance….

Nonforceful verbal resistance refers to the victim using nonaggressive verbal responses such as trying to reason with the offender, pleading, begging, or crying (Ullman, 1997). Nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors have generally been found to be ineffective in avoiding rape (Bart & O’Brien, 1984; Levine-MacCombie & Koss, 1986; Ullman & Knight, 1991, 1992; Zoucha-Jensen & Coyne, 1993). In addition, Furby and Fischhoff (1992), in their review of 22 studies, found that talking to an offender in a nonforceful way (e.g., pleading, making a moral appeal, or reasoning with the offender) may actually be harmful to the victim. In an attempt to explain why nonforceful verbal actions do not appear effective in preventing rape completion, Ullman and Knight (1992) suggest that nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors (e.g., pleading, begging) might actually coincide with how rapists want women to act, because rapists often want to feel “power and control over a weaker person” (p. 33).

In contrast to the general finding that the use of nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors is ineffective in avoiding rape, Levine-MacCombie and Koss (1986) found that two types of nonforceful verbal actions (crying and reasoning with the offender) contributed to the prediction of rape avoidance. This divergent finding may be due to one of the characteristics of their sample: All of the women in their sample were victims of acquaintance rape.

Page 216:

Table 3: Nested Binary Logistic Regression Models for Rape (N=782)

Here, there were six significant predictors. Just as for robbery, victim resistance levels were inversely related to rape completion. Resisting verbally reduced the odds of rape completion by 66% (.341), physical resistance by 85% (.151), and the collapsed category of resisting with an object, knife, or gun reduced the odds by 91% (.085).

[188] Paper: “Resisting Rape: The Effects of Victim Self-Protection on Rape Completion and Injury.” By Jongyeon Tark and Gary Kleck. Violence Against Women, March 2014. Pages 270–292. <journals.sagepub.com>

Page 270:

The impact of victim resistance on rape completion and injury was examined utilizing a large probability sample of sexual assault incidents, derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey [NCVS] (1992–2002), and taking into account whether harm to the victim followed or preceded self-protection (SP) actions. Additional injuries besides rape, particularly serious injuries, following victim resistance are rare. Results indicate that most SP actions, both forceful and nonforceful, reduce the risk of rape completion, and do not significantly affect the risk of additional injury.

Page 273:

The data for this study were generated by interviews conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau in connection with the NCVS, covering crime incidents that occurred in the United States from 1992 to 2002 (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). Information on the sequence of victim harm and resistance actions was not gathered before 1992. Rapes involving female victims were selected for analysis according to the NCVS Type of Crime (TOC) typology. The sample was composed of 733 unweighted cases of rape or attempted rape with female victims and 1,278 sexual assaults that were not rapes or attempted rapes. Incidents were weighted using a modified version of the NCVS Incident Weight, which reflects their differing probabilities of selection into the sample.

Page 280: “Similar patterns were found among 1,278 nonrape sexual assaults. … Of the 17 sample cases of armed resistance, none resulted in injury after the victim used a weapon.”

Page 289: “None of the nine sample cases of armed resistance resulted in either rape completion or other injury following SP actions. Given the small number of relevant cases, this finding only approached significance and must be regarded as merely suggestive, but it is consistent with prior research.”

CALCULATION: 17 nonrape assaults + 9 rape assaults = 26 total assaults

[189] Paper: “Resisting Rape: The Effects of Victim Self-Protection on Rape Completion and Injury.” By Jongyeon Tark and Gary Kleck. Violence Against Women, March 2014. <journals.sagepub.com>

Apparent conflicts in findings of studies may also be attributable to the failure of many researchers to establish the sequence of protective actions and injury. Researchers who found positive associations between injury and self-protection (SP) actions, and concluded that resistance provoked offenders into attacking victims, failed to establish whether SP actions preceded or followed the offender’s inflicting of injury (e.g., Atkeson et al., 1989; Block & Skogan, 1986; Brecklin & Ullman, 2001; Griffin & Griffin, 1981; Marchbanks et al., 1990; Ruback & Ivie, 1988). In these studies, crimes where a victim was injured before doing something to resist were effectively treated as cases in which resistance provoked injury. In contrast, studies that established the injury-SP sequence have generally found that all or most types of resistance either reduce the risk of subsequent injury or have no net effect one way or the other (Guerette & Santana, 2010; Quinsey & Upfold, 1985; Tark & Kleck, 2004; Ullman & Knight, 1992).

[190] Paper: “Rape Against Women: What Can Research Offer to Guide the Development of Prevention Programs and Risk Reduction Interventions?” By Bonnie S. Fisher and others. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, May 2008. Pages 92–208. <journals.sagepub.com>

Page 163:

During the past few decades, a series of national victimization studies and countless smaller studies have documented that the occurrence of rape against women is endemic and poses serious social and public health problems. Drawing on the salient findings from the rape research agenda, we address a deceptively simple question that has been the focus of some controversy: What can research offer to guide the development of rape prevention programs and risk reduction interventions?

Page 170–172:

[R]ape awareness and educational programs … are premised on the notion that the more individuals understand about rape, the less likely they will become victims or perpetrators. According to Schewe (2006), however, “The clearest message that comes from the evaluation literature is that these programs rarely work” (p. 112). Any success these programs do find is usually based on increases in knowledge or changes in attitudes among the female participants, not the males—the population who commits almost all the rapes (see Schewe, 2006). …

… One review shows that the most common type of rape reduction program focuses on reducing the incidence of rape by changing rape-supportive attitudes through a 1- to 2-hour educational workshop (see Schewe, 2006). However, these programs premise their message on two relationships that are not well supported in the research literature: (a) that rape is a consequence of widespread belief in rape myths, and (b) that changing rape-supportive attitudes can reduce the occurrence of rape. Much research has shown that participants of these programs increase their knowledge about rape. However, in her review of 21 rape prevention education programs, Lonsway (1996) notes that in only about half the studies did the participants show a change in attitudes and knowledge. Noteworthy is that in two of these programs, men reported an actual increase in rape-supportive attitudes.

Support for the effectiveness of these programs is further compromised by the lack of long-term stability of attitude changes. Improved attitudes immediately following program participation typically rebound to preprogram levels within 2 to 5 months (see Brietenbecher, 2000). …

The empirical data clearly have shown that forceful resistance strategies do increase avoidance of rape without increasing the risk of injury by strangers and known perpetrators. …

Educating women how to identify and navigate different risky behaviors (e.g., alcohol and drug use, sexually coercive tactics), and situations (e.g., parties, bars, dating) coupled with learning how to use effective self-protective action when threatened or assaulted is critical to preventing rape. …

Self-defense training. Self-defense training focuses on preparing women for a potential violent attack. Anecdotal evidence abounds as to the success of self-defense training, yet there are very few empirical evaluations of this type of training on woman’s likelihood of avoiding rape (see Brecklin & Ullman, 2005). A few studies, primarily dissertations, have provided indirect support for the efficacy of self-defense training (see Schewe, 2006). These benefits include women overcoming passive female gender socialization that they are unable to protect themselves, increasing their self-efficacy, and decreasing their anxiety.

[191] Report: “The Sexual Victimization of College Women.” By Bonnie S. Fisher, Francis T. Cullen, and Michael G. Turner, December 2000. <www.ojp.gov>

Page 2:

The National College Women Sexual Victimization (NCWSV) study, described in this report and funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), attempted to build on, and surmount the limitations of, existing research on the sexual victimization of college students by:

• Employing a nationally representative sample of college women. …

• Measuring sexual victimization using a two-stage process starting with “behaviorally specific” screen questions that attempted to cue respondents to recall and report to the interviewer different types of sexual victimization experiences they may have had. Those who reported a victimization were then asked a series of questions, called an incident report, to verify what type of sexual victimization, if any, had occurred. …

In addition, the research project contained a comparison component designed to assess how rape estimates that use the two-stage process (behaviorally specific questions and incident reports) compared with rape estimates drawn from a sample of college women who completed a survey based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The comparison component was funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). …

The resulting data furnish perhaps the most systematic analysis of the extent and nature of the sexual victimization of college women in the past decade.

Who was surveyed?

NCWSV study results are based on a telephone survey of a randomly selected, national sample of 4,446 women who were attending a 2- or 4-year college or university during fall 1996. The questions were asked between February and May 1997.

Page 4:

Each sample member was sent a letter describing the study and research protocol approximately 2 weeks prior to when a trained female interviewer called using a computer-aided telephone interviewing system.9 The response rate was 85.6 percent.10

Page 17:

Most victims knew the person who sexually victimized them. For both completed and attempted rapes, about 9 in 10 offenders were known to the victim. Most often, a boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, classmate, friend, acquaintance, or coworker sexually victimized the women. College professors were not identified as committing any rapes or sexual coercions, but they were cited as the offender in a low percentage of cases involving unwanted sexual contact. The victim-offender relationship for rape incidents is displayed in exhibit 8.

Pages 18–19:

The vast majority of sexual victimizations occurred in the evening (after 6 p.m.). For example, 51.8 percent of completed rapes took place after midnight, 36.5 percent occurred between 6 p.m. and midnight, and only 11.8 percent took place between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. …

The majority of sexual victimizations, especially rapes and physically coerced sexual contact, occurred in living quarters. Almost 60 percent of the completed rapes that occurred on campus took place in the victim’s residence, 31 percent occurred in other living quarters on campus, and 10.3 percent took place in a fraternity. Off-campus sexual victimizations, especially rapes, also occurred in residences. However, particularly for sexual contacts and threatened victimizations, incidents also took place in settings such as bars, dance clubs or nightclubs, and work settings.

[192] Webpage: “Tom Patire.” Accessed January 21, 2025 at <www.tompatire.com>

Tom Patire is America’s foremost expert on personal safety for all ages. Dubbed America’s Leading Personal Safety Expert by multi-facets of the media Tom took on the mission of making our country safer for all people. As a concerned person Tom has dedicated his life to educating and empowering people of all walks of life about personal safety, personal well-being, and personal protection. …

As an elite bodyguard to the world’s VIPs as well as a fellow concerned parent, Tom places great emphasis on keeping safe those around us, be they our families, children, senior citizens, or a company’s most valued asset—their employees. …

Listed in FORBES MAGAZINE as the self-defense Guru for Chauffeurs, security personnel and the wealthy tycoons. …

Inducted into the most prestigious Hall of Fame in the world For Martial Artists.

[193] Tom Patire’s Personal Protection Handbook. By Tom Patire. Three Rivers Press, 2003.

Page 25:

The best ways to avoid the threat of rape should be fairly obvious. Keep away from isolated areas; stay on main roadways and well-lit streets; be alert to your surroundings; and be selective in choosing the people with whom you fraternize. But if you do fall victim to rape, it’s important to keep your wits about you. Don’t expend all your energy on futile attempts to escape. Wait for your best moment—such as when your attacker is using his hands to pull down his pants—and then use your self-defense training, if you have any, or just hit (or kick) and run.

Page 9:

When You’re Stalked by an “Ex”

Make it obvious it’s over….

Tell everyone….

Make it legal: Notify the police. If the behavior persists or escalates, file a harassment complaint

Obtain a restraining order….

Get a big dog….

Create a check-in system: Make sure someone you trust knows where you are at all times, and designate an exact time when you will call that person each day.

Be attentive at all times: Always be aware of your surroundings.

Learn personal protection techniques. ….

[194] Webpage: “SABRE Ruger Pepper Gel, 25 Bursts, 12-Foot (4-Meters) Range.” Accessed January 21, 2025 at <www.amazon.com>

$14.95 …

An ergonomic finger grip improves aim, and a Fast Flip Top safety allows for easier deployment under duress. …

SABRE Red’s pepper gel formula helps prevent wind blowback, offers greater containment of the spray which means only the target will experience the effects, and it is safe to use indoors. …

As one of the top pepper spray brand trusted by police and consumers worldwide, SABRE is carried on six continents and in more than 40 countries. Providing world-renowned protection, SABRE is the exclusive choice of police departments such as New York, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the US Customs & Border Protection and many others.

[195] Webpage: “Pepper Spray Laws by State.” SABRE. Accessed January 21, 2025 at <www.sabrered.com>

Is pepper spray legal in all 50 states? Pepper spray is legal in all 50 states, but each state may have specific restrictions.

Are there age restrictions for purchasing pepper spray? Several states have restrictions regarding the sale of pepper spray to minors. Please refer to your state above for the specific restrictions.

What are the limitations on pepper spray canister sizes in different states? Several states have restrictions regarding the size of canisters. Please refer to your state above for the specific restrictions.

Do I need permission to carry pepper spray on school property? Alaska and Maryland specify pepper spray restrictions on school property. Review the restrictions above for specifics.

Are there licensing requirements for selling or carrying pepper spray in certain states? Massachusetts and New York require a license for selling pepper spray. Massachusetts requires a license in order to carry pepper sprays and gels and those ages 15 to 18 must obtain a firearms ID card in order to purchase.

[196] Article: “Choosing Training Ammo.” By Keith Wood. Guns & Ammo, January 26, 2017. <www.gunsandammo.com>

Buying a gun for defensive purposes isn’t like buying an insurance policy; it’s more like buying a set of golf clubs. An insurance policy gets locked in the safe and will work fine when you need it, so long as the premiums have been paid. If the golf clubs sit in the garage and never make it to the range, however, your game will never improve. Many gun owners seem to think that the mere possession of a firearm will render them able to contend with whatever life-threatening situations the world dishes out. History tells us otherwise, supporting the fact that individuals rarely (if ever) “rise to the occasion” under stress. Instead, they generally default to the skill level they have mastered. Hence, if you want to perform when it counts, training and practice are key.

[197] U.S. Code Title 22, Chapter 78, Section 7102: “Trafficking Victims Protection – Definitions.” Accessed July 26, 2021 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(11) Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons

The term “severe forms of trafficking in persons” means—

(A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or

(B) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.

[198] Report: “Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States: Overview and Issues for Congress.” By Kristin M. Finklea, Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara, and Alison Siskin. Congressional Research Service, January 28, 2015. <fas.org>

Page 1:

[The] Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) [is] the primary law that addresses trafficking ….3

3 P.L. 106-386. This act is also called the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The TVPA is codified under 22 U.S.C. §7101 et seq., 42 U.S.C. §14044 et seq., and 18 U.S.C. §1591 et seq. (the criminal statute pertaining to sex trafficking of children).

[199] U.S. Code Title 22, Chapter 78, Section 7102: “Trafficking Victims Protection – Definitions.” Accessed July 26, 2021 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(4) Commercial Sex Act

The term “commercial sex act” means any sex act on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.

[200] U.S. Code Title 22, Chapter 78, Section 7102: “Trafficking Victims Protection – Definitions.” Accessed July 26, 2021 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(3) Coercion

The term “coercion” means—

(A) threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person;

(B) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; or

(C) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.

[201] U.S. Code Title 22, Chapter 78, Section 7102: “Trafficking Victims Protection – Definitions.” Accessed July 26, 2021 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(4) Commercial Sex Act

The term “commercial sex act” means any sex act on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person. …

(11) Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons

The term “severe forms of trafficking in persons” means—

(A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age….

[202] “The National Report on Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking: America’s Prostituted Children.” Shared Hope International, May, 2009. <sharedhope.org>

Page iv:

Domestic minor sex trafficking (DMST) is the commercial sexual exploitation of American children within U.S. borders. It is the “recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act” where the person is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident under the age of 18 years. The age of the victim is the critical issue—there is no requirement to prove force, fraud, or coercion was used to secure the victim’s actions.

Page 5:

The sex trafficking of children occurs when minors (under the age of 18) are commercially sexually exploited. The commercial aspect of the sexual exploitation act is critical to separating the crime of trafficking from sexual assault, rape, or molestation crimes against children. The term “commercial sex act” is defined in the TVPA [Trafficking Victims Protection Act] as the giving or receiving of anything of value (money, drugs, shelter, food, clothes, etc.) to any person in exchange for a sex act. Importantly, the money or item of value provided for the sex act can be “given to or received by any person.”6 This means that the child can be the direct recipient of the money, food, and/or shelter, and the situation is defined as sex trafficking and, most importantly, the child is defined as a victim of domestic minor sex trafficking. This issue arises frequently in cases of homeless youth engaging in “survival sex” to secure food, housing, transportation, and other items of survival. In the absence of a trafficker/pimp selling the youth, the perpetrator paying for the sex act with food, a bed, or a ride can become the trafficker.

[203] Report: “The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children In the U. S., Canada and Mexico.” By Richard J. Estes and Neil Alan Weiner. University of Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of Youth Policy, September 18, 2001. Revised 2/20/02. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 11: “Many youth involved in the exchange of sex for money or other considerations (e.g., food, shelter, drugs, etc.) do not perceive themselves as engaging in prostitution but rather as doing ‘whatever is necessary’ to ensure their survival. For purposes of this study, however, ‘survival sex’ and ‘child prostitution’ are understood to be the same phenomenon and the terms are used interchangeably.”

NOTE: Permission to post this report to Just Facts’ website provided by Dr. Richard J. Estes, October 16, 2018.

[204] Webpage: “Citizen’s Guide to U.S. Federal Law on the Prostitution of Children.” U.S. Department of Justice, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. Updated May 28, 2020. <www.justice.gov>

Child Sex Trafficking is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1591. This statute makes it a federal offense to knowingly recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, or maintain a minor (defined as someone under 18 years of age) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the victim is a minor and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act. “Commercial sex act” is defined very broadly to include “any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.” In other words, it is illegal both to offer and to obtain a child, and cause that child to engage in any kind of sexual activity in exchange for anything of value, whether it be money, goods, personal benefit, in-kind favors, or some other kind of benefit. Section 1591 also makes it a crime for individuals to participate in a business venture that obtains minors and causes them to engage in commercial sex acts. …

If the victim was under the age of 14 or if force, fraud, or coercion were used, the penalty is not less than 15 years in prison up to life. If the victim was aged 14–17, the penalty shall not be less than 10 years in prison up to life. Anyone who obstructs or attempts to obstruct the enforcement of this statute faces as many as 20 years imprisonment. Defendants who are convicted under this statute are also required to pay restitution to their victims for any losses they caused.

[205] Report: “Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States: Overview and Issues for Congress.” By Kristin M. Finklea, Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara, and Alison Siskin. Congressional Research Service, January 28, 2015. <fas.org>

Page 1:

Under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), the primary law that addresses trafficking, sex trafficking of children is a federal crime—even if a child is not removed from his or her community.3 Further, regardless of whether a child is believed to have consented to sex or whether the child represents himself/herself as an adult,4 the child is considered a trafficking victim under federal law. …

3 P.L. 106-386. This act is also called the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The TVPA is codified under 22 U.S.C. §7101 et seq., 42 U.S.C. §14044 et seq., and 18 U.S.C. §1591 et seq. (the criminal statute pertaining to sex trafficking of children). Of note, sex trafficking may encompass a range of activities including prostitution, pornography, and stripping. …

4 The law provides that in prosecutions involving a child victim, the government is not required to prove that the defendant knew that the person was under the age of 18. See 18 U.S.C. §1591(c).

[206] Webpage: “Human Trafficking: Key Legislation.” U.S. Department of Justice. Updated January 6, 2017. <www.justice.gov>

The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA 2008), Pub. L. No. 110-457, featured new measures to prevent and deter trafficking. The TVPRA 2008 further improved the tools available to hold traffickers accountable by: …

• Eliminating the requirement to prove the defendant knew a sex trafficking victim was a minor in cases where the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the minor; …

The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (JVTA), Pub. L. No. 114-22, again gave the Department more tools to address human trafficking, by: …

• Clarifying that there is no need to prove either that the defendant knew, or that he recklessly disregarded, the fact that a sex trafficking victim was a minor if the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim.

[207] U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 77, Section 1591: “Sex Trafficking of Children or By Force, Fraud, or Coercion.” Accessed September 21, 2021 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Whoever knowingly—

(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person; or

(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participating in a venture which has engaged in an act described in violation of paragraph (1),

knowing, or except where the act constituting the violation of paragraph (1) is advertising, in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). …

(c) In a prosecution under subsection (a)(1) in which the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the person so recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, or solicited, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew, or recklessly disregarded the fact, that the person had not attained the age of 18 years.

[208] Paper: “Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?” By Seo-Young Cho, Axel Dreher, and Eric Neumayer. World Development, January 2013. Pages 67–82. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Page 69: “One of the biggest challenges of doing research on human trafficking is the scarcity of reliable and comparable data. Human trafficking is a clandestine, criminal activity, with those being trafficked and involved in such activities being part of ‘hidden populations’ (Tyldum & Brunovskis, 2005). Therefore, the true number of human trafficking victims is unknown (Belser, de Cock, & Mehran, 2005).”

[209] Paper: “Study on National Legislation on Prostitution and the Trafficking in Women and Children.” By Andrea Di Nicola and others. Transcrime (for the European Parliament), August 2005. <www.academia.edu>

Page 7: “Quantitative and qualitative information on THB [Traffic in Human Beings] for sexual exploitation are lacking, fragmented, and not comparable across-countries, especially with reference to victims. This, of course, is primarily due to the fact that we are dealing with a hidden population.”

[210] Report: “Trafficking in Human Beings: Ten Years of Independent Monitoring.” Bureau of the Dutch National Rapporteur, 2010. <hrlibrary.umn.edu>

Page 89:

Since human trafficking is often hidden and victims are often unwilling or afraid to speak out15 (or do not realise that they are victims16), there are probably a large number of unknown cases of human trafficking (a large ‘dark number’). Consequently, statistical trends based on the number of known cases of human trafficking usually do not directly reflect developments in the total number of cases of human trafficking17. The number of known situations of human trafficking depends to a large extent on factors such as the public attention for human trafficking, the priorities of the investigative services and the public prosecution service, the method of registration employed by victim support organisations, and changes in the law. …

15 For reasons of fear, shame or guilt. Non-Dutch victims could also face a language barrier and/or not know who they can report to in the Netherlands. Furthermore, victims living illegally in the Netherlands sometimes fear the police because they are afraid of being deported. Sometimes victims are also ‘in debt’ to the human trafficker, a debt that they believe they have to pay off. Or non-Dutch victims feel an obligation to send money back regularly to their family (NRM1 § 4.5, NRM3 § 3.6).

16 For example, victims of “traditional” loverboys who are in love with their loverboy (NRM3 § 3.2.2) or non-Dutch victims who prefer being exploited in the Netherlands to the situation in their own country (NRM5 § 3.2.1).

17 In other words, including the large number of cases of human trafficking that are probably not know about.

[211] Book: Statistics for Business and Economics (10th edition). By David R. Anderson, Dennis J. Sweeney, and Thomas A. Williams. Thomson South-Western, 2009.

Page 290:

Convenience sampling is a nonprobability sampling technique. As the name implies, the sample is identified primarily by convenience. Elements are included in the sample without prespecified or known probabilities of being selected. For example, a professor conducting research at a university may use student volunteers to constitute a sample simply because they are readily available and will participate as subjects for little or no cost. …

Convenience samples have the advantage of relatively easy sample selection and data collection; however, it is impossible to evaluate the “goodness” of the sample in terms of its representativeness of the population. A convenience sample may provide good results or it may not; no statistically justified procedure allows a probability analysis and inference about the quality of the sample results. Sometimes researchers apply statistical methods designed for probability samples to a convenience sample, arguing that the convenience sample can be treated as through it were a probability sample. However, this argument cannot be supported, and we should be cautious in interpreting the results of convenience samples that are used to make inferences about populations.

[212] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 92 (of PDF):

Aggravated assault―An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Simple assaults are excluded.

[213] Webpage: “Terms & Definitions.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed January 15, 2025 at <ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov>

Aggravated assault

An attack or attempted attack with a weapon, regardless of whether the victim is injured, or an attack without a weapon when serious injury results.

[214] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 39:

The NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] includes, but the UCR Program’s SRS [FBI Uniform Crime Report Summary Reporting System] excludes, sexual assault (completed, attempted, and threatened), attempted robberies, verbal threats of rape, simple assault, and crimes not reported to law enforcement.

[215] Webpage: “Terms & Definitions.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed January 15, 2025 at <ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov>

Simple assault

An attack or attempted attack without a weapon that results in no injury, minor injury (e.g., bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches, and swelling), or an undetermined injury requiring fewer than two days of hospitalization.

[216] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 39:

Second, the two programs measure an overlapping but nonidentical set of crimes. The NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] includes, but the UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] Program’s SRS [Summary Reporting System] excludes, sexual assault (completed, attempted, and threatened), attempted robberies, verbal threats of rape, simple assault, and crimes not reported to law enforcement.

[217] Report: “The Nation’s Two Measures of Homicide.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) are part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. …

Page 3:

SHRReporting is Voluntary …

SHRData collection methods … In most states, reports from individual law enforcement agencies are compiled monthly by state-level agencies and then forwarded to the FBI …

[218] Webpage: “NIBRS Estimation.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed January 1, 2025 at <bit.ly>

The UCR [Uniform Crime Report] Program has estimated crime statistics for the nation, its regions, and for states since the 1960s. Estimation is the statistical process which allows inferences to be made about an outcome of interest (e.g., the number of robberies in the United States) in a population, even if information about the outcome is only known for part of that population. With the UCR Program collecting crime data only through NIBRS [National Incident-Based Reporting System], estimates for the referenced geographic areas will—for the first time this year—be exclusively based on NIBRS data submitted for 2021. In addition, with the detailed NIBRS data, other inferences about crime will be available, e.g., age, sex, and race about victims and persons arrested, as well as more estimates for more offenses.

With careful planning and execution by the FBI, in conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a NIBRS Estimation Process was created in anticipation of the move to NIBRS. Historically, estimates were based on data contributed annually by law enforcement agencies that covered 90% or more of the U.S. population. With such a high coverage rate, estimation was a more straightforward process. Initially, as agencies continue to transition to the more comprehensive NIBRS collection method, the program will experience a period of lower participation (for 2021, 65% of population covered). The more robust and complex estimation process to account for unreported data will bridge this gap.

This year, you will notice more information about estimation as the UCR Program assures our users understand our NIBRS estimation process. One example: estimates from NIBRS will have confidence intervals (the mean of an estimate plus or minus the variation possible in that estimate) for the first time. However, estimates found to have a level of statistical uncertainty beyond established standards will not be published by the UCR Program.

[219] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 43 (of PDF):

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program provides a nationwide view of crime based on data submissions reported by law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The data submitted to various distinct collections, within the FBI’s UCR Program, detail criminal incidents as well as law enforcement data. For decades, several of these compilations have been published annually. Though each collection presents details of crime or law enforcement data based on data provided by participating agencies, the reports vary in context, participation, and publication criteria.

Crime in the Nation, 2023, includes data received from 16,334 law enforcement agencies that provided data through either the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) or the Summary Reporting System (SRS). These agencies represent 85.2 percent of agencies actively enrolled in the FBI’s UCR Program and cover a combined population of 315,761,680 (94.3 percent) inhabitants. Notably, every city agency covering a population of 1,000,000 or more inhabitants contributed a full 12 months of data to the FBI’s UCR Program in 2023.

[220] Paper: “Police Manipulations of Crime Reporting: Insiders’ Revelations.” By John A. Eterno, Arvind Verma, and Eli B. Silverman. Justice Quarterly, November 17, 2014. <www.tandfonline.com>

Social scientists have theorized about the corruption of crime reports (Bayley, 1983; Campbell, 1976). Yet, scant empirical research has examined the impact of modern policing methods on the accuracy of crime reporting. Our research uses an anonymous survey of 1,770 retired New York City police officers examining retirees’ experiences with crime report manipulations across their years of retirement. … Our research supports Bayley’s and Campbell’s theories. …

Whistleblowers have provided audiotapes indicating that crime reports are manipulated. Officers Adrian Schoolcraft, Adyl Polanco, Sergeant Robert Borrelli, and others produced ample evidence of manipulation. Indeed, Officer Schoolcraft’s allegations have since been confirmed by the department’s own “secret” internal investigation exposed by a reporter (Rayman, 2012). One example of the level of manipulation from Schoolcraft’s tapes is supervisors at roll calls instructing entire shifts of officers not to take robbery reports if victims are not willing to return to the station house—clearly violating department training and procedures.

Hospital data, available through 2006 on these issues, raises serious questions regarding manipulation particularly with respect to assaults, thus providing additional reasons for studying the phenomenon of crime reporting manipulation. New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene statistics indicate that in 1999 there were 25,181 visits to emergency rooms throughout the City for assault. In 2006, there were 47,779 visits. This represents a 90% increase in visits for assault while the NYPD reported a substantial decline. …

Using this database, we sent a request to participate in the survey—which included a unique link to the questionnaire in its body—via e-mail to the 4,069 NYPD retirees with operational e-mail addresses….

… [O]ur final sample size was fairly large—1,770 retired officers. The sample size adds assurance that the findings accurately reflect the experiences of actively retired officers. …

… Importantly, we also note that every officer in the study had considerable experience of working in different units of NYPD including work in a patrol (precinct) assignment at one time in their careers. Overall, the trends in the data are clear and completely in synch with trends at NYPD.

The large sample size and the distributions that comport with what limited information is available about NYPD personnel are indicators that social bias is probably not an issue and that the sample is somewhat representative of NYPD. …

To the specific question, “based upon your experience do you have personal knowledge of any instance in which crime reports were changed to make crime numbers look better than they were?”, 974 respondents stated that they were not aware of manipulation of crime statistics. However, 78 stated that they were aware of such manipulation 1–2 times; 309 stated they had knowledge of this being done 3–4 times and 371 stated 5 or more times.

[221] Article: “Retired Officers Raise Questions on Crime Data.” By William K. Rashbaum. New York Times, February 6, 2010. <www.nytimes.com>

More than a hundred retired New York Police Department captains and higher-ranking officers said in a survey that the intense pressure to produce annual crime reductions led some supervisors and precinct commanders to manipulate crime statistics, according to two criminologists studying the department.

[222] Article: “Brooklyn’s 81st Precinct Probed by NYPD for Fudging Stats; Felonies Allegedly Marked as Misdemeanors.” By Rocco Parascandola. New York Daily News, February 1, 2010. <www.nydailynews.com>

A Brooklyn precinct is under investigation for manipulating statistics to make its cops look like better crimefighters, the Daily News has learned. … Schoolcraft told The News the top brass are so concerned with numbers that one precinct lieutenant is known as ‘The Shredder’ because he’s often spotted destroying documents.

[223] Article: “Pressure Builds on City Police for Accuracy.” By Michael Matza, Craig R. McCoy, and Mark Fazlollah. Philadelphia Inquirer, November 15, 1998.

“Going down with crime”—downgrading major offenses to minor ones to polish the image of commanders and police commissioners and make the city look safer—has been a reflex in police station houses for decades. …

“Every commissioner told the troops that they wanted accurate coding—and none of them meant it,” said Chief Inspector Vincent R. DeBlasis, 60, a 39-year police veteran and a former chief of detectives. “It was all window dressing.”

“No one ever really got in trouble for going down with crime,” said Charles J. Brennan, 48, a 25-year police veteran and statistical specialist who is now deputy commissioner for science and technology. …

Eight months ago, John F. Timoney, a career New York policeman known as an apostle of numbers-driven policing, took over the department, and the tradition of “going down with crime” came under intense assault. …

In July, Timoney refused to submit crime data for the first six months of 1998 to the FBI for inclusion in a city-by-city survey. After his new auditing team uncovered hundreds of downgrades, Timoney said he had no faith in his own department’s statistics. …

Many law-enforcement experts think the problem is indeed widespread—though perhaps most severe in Philadelphia.

They say fudging has compromised the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program for decades and is a greater source of concern now than ever.

[224] Commentary: “Reducing Rape with an Eraser.” By Judith Riesman. Dr. Judith Riesman, September 12, 2006. <www.lifeissues.net>

U.S. News and World Report (April 24, 2000) said, “facing political heat to cut crime in the city, investigators in the New York PPD’s Sex Crime Unit sat on (thousands of) reports of rapes and other sexual assaults.” One officer stated; “The way crime was solved was with an eraser.”

In 2000 even the FBI admitted that one district “failed to report between 13,000 and 37,000 major crimes.” “A 2000 Philadelphia Inquirer report found from 1997–1999, of 300,000 sex crime reports, thousands of rapes got relabeled ‘investigation of persons’ or ‘investigation, protection, and medical examination’—non-crime codes.”

[225] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 3–4 (of PDF):

Caution to users

Data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data in this publication and those in prior issues of Crime in the United States. Because of differing levels of participation from year to year and reporting problems that require the FBI to estimate crime counts for certain contributors, some data may not be comparable from year to year. In addition, this publication may contain updates to data provided in prior years’ publications.

Page 40 (of PDF):

By understanding the strengths and limitations of each program, it is possible to use UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] and NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] to achieve a greater understanding of crime trends and the nature of crime in the United States. For example, changes in police procedures, shifting attitudes toward crime and police, and other societal changes can affect the extent to which people report and law enforcement agencies record crime. NCVS and UCR data can be used in complementary ways to explore why trends in reported and police-recorded crime may differ.

[226] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 99:

Table 1. Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants …

2023 …

Population [=] 334,914,895

Aggravated assault [=] 884,550

CALCULATION: 334,914,895 people / 884,550 aggravated assaults = 379

[227] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 3:

Table 1. Number and rate of violent victimizations, by type of crime …

Aggravated assault … 2023 [=] 1,273,200

Page 35:

Population of persons age 12 or older, by demographic characteristics …

2023 [=] 284,857,030

CALCULATIONS:

  • 1,273,200 DOJ-measured aggravated assaults / 884,550 FBI-measured violent aggravated assaults = 1.4
  • 284,857,030 people aged 12 and older / 1,273,200 aggravated assaults = 224

[228] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 3:

Table 1. Number and rate of violent victimizations, by type of crime …

Simple assault … 2023 [=] 3,933,230

Page 35:

Population of persons age 12 or older, by demographic characteristics …

2023 [=] 284,857,030

CALCULATION: 284,857,030 people aged 12 and older / 3,933,230 simple assaults = 72

[229] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 3:

Table 1. Number and rate of violent victimizations, by type of crime …

Assault … 2023 [=] 5,206,430

Page 35:

Population of persons age 12 or older, by demographic characteristics …

2023 [=] 284,857,030

CALCULATION: 284,857,030 people aged 12 and older / 5,206,430 assaults = 55

[230] Chart constructed with data from:

Dataset: “Estimated Offenses, United States, 1960–2008.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services. Sent from the FBI to Just Facts on June 15, 2010.

Report: “1995 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 13, 1996. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1976–1995.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1996 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 20, 1997. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1977–1996.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1997 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 7, 1998. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1978–1997.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1998 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 12, 1999. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1979–1998.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1999 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 23, 2000. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1980–1999” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2000 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, July 27, 2001. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1981–2000.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2001 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 10, 2002. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1982–2001.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2002 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 8, 2003. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1983–2002.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2003 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 4, 2004. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate, 1984–2003.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2004 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 2, 2005. <www2.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1985–2004.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2005 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2006. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986–2005.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2006 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2007. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1987–2006.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2007 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2008. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1988–2007.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2008 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2009. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1989–2008.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2009 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2010. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1990–2009.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2010 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2011. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1991–2010.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2011 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2012. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1992–2011.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2012 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2013. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1993–2012.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2013 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2014. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1994–2013.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2014 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2015. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1995–2014.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2015 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2016. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1996–2015.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2016 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2017. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1997–2016.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2017 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2018. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1998–2017.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2018 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2019. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1999–2018.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2019 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2020. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1999–2018.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2020 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2021. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2001–2020.” <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “The Transition to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS): A Comparison of 2020 and 2021 NIBRS Estimates.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2022. <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “2022 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2023. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2003–2022.” <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2004–2023.” <www.justfacts.com>

[231] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 593–594 (of PDF):

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, law enforcement agencies can clear, or “close,” offenses in one of two ways: by arrest or by exceptional means. Although an agency may administratively close a case, that does not necessarily mean that the agency can clear the offense for UCR purposes. To clear an offense within the UCR Program’s guidelines, the reporting agency must adhere to certain criteria, which are outlined in the following text. (Note: The UCR Program does not distinguish between offenses cleared by arrest and those cleared by exceptional means in collecting or publishing data via the traditional Summary Reporting System.)

Cleared by Arrest

In the UCR Program, a law enforcement agency reports that an offense is cleared by arrest, or solved for crime reporting purposes, when three specific conditions have been met. The three conditions are that at least one person has been:

• Arrested.

• Charged with the commission of the offense.

• Turned over to the court for prosecution (whether following arrest, court summons, or police notice).

In its clearance calculations, the UCR Program counts the number of offenses that are cleared, not the number of persons arrested. The arrest of one person may clear several crimes, and the arrest of many persons may clear only one offense. In addition, some clearances that an agency records in a particular calendar year, such as 2022, may pertain to offenses that occurred in previous years.

Cleared by Exceptional Means

In certain situations, elements beyond law enforcement’s control prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender. When this occurs, the agency can clear the offense exceptionally. Law enforcement agencies must meet the following four conditions in order to clear an offense by exceptional means.

The agency must have:

• Identified the offender.

• Gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution.

• Identified the offender’s exact location so that the suspect could be taken into custody immediately.

• Encountered a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that prohibits the agency from arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender.

Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense. In the UCR Program, the recovery of property alone does not clear an offense. …

When considering clearances of violent crimes, 57.8 percent of murder offenses, 46.1 percent of aggravated assault offenses, 26.9 percent of rape offenses, and 27.6 percent of robbery offenses were cleared.

[232] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2018.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 2021. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases. All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. …

They exclude persons who were released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. This report is based on NCRP data from 44 states…. In 2018, these states were responsible for 97% of all persons released from state prisons nationwide. Annually administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the NCRP obtains individual-level records from state departments of corrections on prisoners entering and leaving prison custody or community supervision. …

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before Initial Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2018

Most serious offense

Percent of total releases

Time served in prisona

Medianb

Mean

All offenses

100%

1.3 yrs.

2.7 yrs.

Violent

29.8%

2.4 yrs.

4.8 yrs.

Murder

1.7

17.5

17.8

Non-negligent manslaughterc

0.4

7

8.2

Negligent manslaughter

0.8

3.7

5.3

Rape

1.5

7.2

9.6

Other sexual assault

3.4

3.6

5

Robbery

7.4

3.2

4.8

Assault

11.6

1.4

2.5

Other violentd

2.3

1.5

3.5

Property

25.7%

13 mos.

21 mos.

Burglary

10.6

17

27

Larceny-theft

6.8

11

17

Motor-vehicle theft

1.5

11

15

Fraude

3.8

11

17

Other propertyf

3

12

20

Drug

24.6%

12 mos.

21 mos.

Possession

8.6

9

13

Trafficking

9.4

17

26

Other drugg

6.6

14

23

Public order

19.2%

13 mos.

21 mos.

Weapons

5.9

15

23

Other public orderh

13.3

12

20

Other/unspecified

0.7%

16 mos.

31 mos.

Number of releases

376,993

~

~

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Initial release does not refer to first-time offenders but to offenders’ first release from a given sentence (whether they are first-time offenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or less; those with missing values for most serious offense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 3,266 deaths in 2018.
~ Not applicable.
a Excludes time served in jail.
b The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers.
c Includes unspecified and other homicides.
d Includes kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, hit and run with injury, and other unknown violent offenses.
e Includes forgery and embezzlement.
f Includes arson, receiving and trafficking of stolen property, destruction of property, trespassing, and other unknown property offenses.
g Includes forging prescriptions, possession of drug paraphernalia, and other unspecified offenses.
h Includes DUIs/DWIs; court offenses; commercialized vice, morals, and decency offenses; liquor law violations; and other public-order offenses.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2018

[233] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2016.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2018. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases.

All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. They exclude persons who had been released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. …

Ninety-six percent of violent offenders released in 2016, including 70% of those sentenced for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, served less than 20 years before initial release from state prison. …

By offense type, the median time served was 13.4 years for murder, 2.2 years for violent crimes excluding murder….

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before First Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2016

Most Serious Offense

Time Served in Prisona

Medianb [Years]

Violent

2.4

Murderc

13.4

Note: … First release does not refer to first-time offenders but to offenders’ first release from a given sentence (whether they are first-time offenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or less; those with missing values for most serious offense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 2,755 deaths in 2016. …

a Excludes time served in jail.
b The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers.
c Includes non-negligent manslaughter. …

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2016.

[234] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 91 (of the PDF):

Robbery―The taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.

[235] Webpage: “Terms & Definitions.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed January 15, 2025 at <ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov>

Robbery

The unlawful taking or attempted taking of property that is in the immediate possession of another, by force or threat of force, with or without a weapon, and with or without injury.

[236] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 39:

Second, the two programs measure an overlapping but nonidentical set of crimes. The NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] includes, but the UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] Program’s SRS [Summary Reporting System] excludes, sexual assault (completed, attempted, and threatened), attempted robberies, verbal threats of rape, simple assault, and crimes not reported to law enforcement.

[237] Report: “The Nation’s Two Measures of Homicide.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) are part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. …

Page 3:

SHRReporting is Voluntary …

SHRData collection methods … In most states, reports from individual law enforcement agencies are compiled monthly by state-level agencies and then forwarded to the FBI …

[238] Webpage: “NIBRS Estimation.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed January 1, 2025 at <bit.ly>

The UCR [Uniform Crime Report] Program has estimated crime statistics for the nation, its regions, and for states since the 1960s. Estimation is the statistical process which allows inferences to be made about an outcome of interest (e.g., the number of robberies in the United States) in a population, even if information about the outcome is only known for part of that population. With the UCR Program collecting crime data only through NIBRS [National Incident-Based Reporting System], estimates for the referenced geographic areas will—for the first time this year—be exclusively based on NIBRS data submitted for 2021. In addition, with the detailed NIBRS data, other inferences about crime will be available, e.g., age, sex, and race about victims and persons arrested, as well as more estimates for more offenses.

With careful planning and execution by the FBI, in conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a NIBRS Estimation Process was created in anticipation of the move to NIBRS. Historically, estimates were based on data contributed annually by law enforcement agencies that covered 90% or more of the U.S. population. With such a high coverage rate, estimation was a more straightforward process. Initially, as agencies continue to transition to the more comprehensive NIBRS collection method, the program will experience a period of lower participation (for 2021, 65% of population covered). The more robust and complex estimation process to account for unreported data will bridge this gap.

This year, you will notice more information about estimation as the UCR Program assures our users understand our NIBRS estimation process. One example: estimates from NIBRS will have confidence intervals (the mean of an estimate plus or minus the variation possible in that estimate) for the first time. However, estimates found to have a level of statistical uncertainty beyond established standards will not be published by the UCR Program.

[239] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 43 (of PDF):

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program provides a nationwide view of crime based on data submissions reported by law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The data submitted to various distinct collections, within the FBI’s UCR Program, detail criminal incidents as well as law enforcement data. For decades, several of these compilations have been published annually. Though each collection presents details of crime or law enforcement data based on data provided by participating agencies, the reports vary in context, participation, and publication criteria.

Crime in the Nation, 2023, includes data received from 16,334 law enforcement agencies that provided data through either the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) or the Summary Reporting System (SRS). These agencies represent 85.2 percent of agencies actively enrolled in the FBI’s UCR Program and cover a combined population of 315,761,680 (94.3 percent) inhabitants. Notably, every city agency covering a population of 1,000,000 or more inhabitants contributed a full 12 months of data to the FBI’s UCR Program in 2023.

[240] Paper: “Police Manipulations of Crime Reporting: Insiders’ Revelations.” By John A. Eterno, Arvind Verma, and Eli B. Silverman. Justice Quarterly, November 17, 2014. <www.tandfonline.com>

Social scientists have theorized about the corruption of crime reports (Bayley, 1983; Campbell, 1976). Yet, scant empirical research has examined the impact of modern policing methods on the accuracy of crime reporting. Our research uses an anonymous survey of 1,770 retired New York City police officers examining retirees’ experiences with crime report manipulations across their years of retirement. … Our research supports Bayley’s and Campbell’s theories. …

Whistleblowers have provided audiotapes indicating that crime reports are manipulated. Officers Adrian Schoolcraft, Adyl Polanco, Sergeant Robert Borrelli, and others produced ample evidence of manipulation. Indeed, Officer Schoolcraft’s allegations have since been confirmed by the department’s own “secret” internal investigation exposed by a reporter (Rayman, 2012). One example of the level of manipulation from Schoolcraft’s tapes is supervisors at roll calls instructing entire shifts of officers not to take robbery reports if victims are not willing to return to the station house—clearly violating department training and procedures.

Hospital data, available through 2006 on these issues, raises serious questions regarding manipulation particularly with respect to assaults, thus providing additional reasons for studying the phenomenon of crime reporting manipulation. New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene statistics indicate that in 1999 there were 25,181 visits to emergency rooms throughout the City for assault. In 2006, there were 47,779 visits. This represents a 90% increase in visits for assault while the NYPD reported a substantial decline. …

Using this database, we sent a request to participate in the survey—which included a unique link to the questionnaire in its body—via e-mail to the 4,069 NYPD retirees with operational e-mail addresses….

… [O]ur final sample size was fairly large—1,770 retired officers. The sample size adds assurance that the findings accurately reflect the experiences of actively retired officers. …

… Importantly, we also note that every officer in the study had considerable experience of working in different units of NYPD including work in a patrol (precinct) assignment at one time in their careers. Overall, the trends in the data are clear and completely in synch with trends at NYPD.

The large sample size and the distributions that comport with what limited information is available about NYPD personnel are indicators that social bias is probably not an issue and that the sample is somewhat representative of NYPD. …

To the specific question, “based upon your experience do you have personal knowledge of any instance in which crime reports were changed to make crime numbers look better than they were?”, 974 respondents stated that they were not aware of manipulation of crime statistics. However, 78 stated that they were aware of such manipulation 1–2 times; 309 stated they had knowledge of this being done 3–4 times and 371 stated 5 or more times.

[241] Article: “Retired Officers Raise Questions on Crime Data.” By William K. Rashbaum. New York Times, February 6, 2010. <www.nytimes.com>

More than a hundred retired New York Police Department captains and higher-ranking officers said in a survey that the intense pressure to produce annual crime reductions led some supervisors and precinct commanders to manipulate crime statistics, according to two criminologists studying the department.

[242] Article: “Brooklyn’s 81st Precinct Probed by NYPD for Fudging Stats; Felonies Allegedly Marked as Misdemeanors.” By Rocco Parascandola. New York Daily News, February 1, 2010. <www.nydailynews.com>

A Brooklyn precinct is under investigation for manipulating statistics to make its cops look like better crimefighters, the Daily News has learned. … Schoolcraft told The News the top brass are so concerned with numbers that one precinct lieutenant is known as ‘The Shredder’ because he’s often spotted destroying documents.

[243] Article: “Pressure Builds on City Police for Accuracy.” By Michael Matza, Craig R. McCoy, and Mark Fazlollah. Philadelphia Inquirer, November 15, 1998.

“Going down with crime”—downgrading major offenses to minor ones to polish the image of commanders and police commissioners and make the city look safer—has been a reflex in police station houses for decades. …

“Every commissioner told the troops that they wanted accurate coding—and none of them meant it,” said Chief Inspector Vincent R. DeBlasis, 60, a 39-year police veteran and a former chief of detectives. “It was all window dressing.”

“No one ever really got in trouble for going down with crime,” said Charles J. Brennan, 48, a 25-year police veteran and statistical specialist who is now deputy commissioner for science and technology. …

Eight months ago, John F. Timoney, a career New York policeman known as an apostle of numbers-driven policing, took over the department, and the tradition of “going down with crime” came under intense assault. …

In July, Timoney refused to submit crime data for the first six months of 1998 to the FBI for inclusion in a city-by-city survey. After his new auditing team uncovered hundreds of downgrades, Timoney said he had no faith in his own department’s statistics. …

Many law-enforcement experts think the problem is indeed widespread—though perhaps most severe in Philadelphia.

They say fudging has compromised the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program for decades and is a greater source of concern now than ever.

[244] Commentary: “Reducing Rape with an Eraser.” By Judith Riesman. Dr. Judith Riesman, September 12, 2006. <www.lifeissues.net>

U.S. News and World Report (April 24, 2000) said, “facing political heat to cut crime in the city, investigators in the New York PPD’s Sex Crime Unit sat on (thousands of) reports of rapes and other sexual assaults.” One officer stated; “The way crime was solved was with an eraser.”

In 2000 even the FBI admitted that one district “failed to report between 13,000 and 37,000 major crimes.” “A 2000 Philadelphia Inquirer report found from 1997–1999, of 300,000 sex crime reports, thousands of rapes got relabeled ‘investigation of persons’ or ‘investigation, protection, and medical examination’—non-crime codes.”

[245] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 3–4 (of PDF):

Caution to users

Data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data in this publication and those in prior issues of Crime in the United States. Because of differing levels of participation from year to year and reporting problems that require the FBI to estimate crime counts for certain contributors, some data may not be comparable from year to year. In addition, this publication may contain updates to data provided in prior years’ publications.

Page 40 (of PDF):

By understanding the strengths and limitations of each program, it is possible to use UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] and NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] to achieve a greater understanding of crime trends and the nature of crime in the United States. For example, changes in police procedures, shifting attitudes toward crime and police, and other societal changes can affect the extent to which people report and law enforcement agencies record crime. NCVS and UCR data can be used in complementary ways to explore why trends in reported and police-recorded crime may differ.

[246] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 99:

Table 1. Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants …

2023 …

Population [=] 334,914,895

Robbery [=] 222,795

CALCULATION: 334,914,895 people / 222,795 robberies = 1,503

[247] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 3:

Table 1. Number and rate of violent victimizations, by type of crime …

Robbery … 2023 [=] 731,620

Page 35:

Population of persons age 12 or older, by demographic characteristics …

2023 [=] 284,857,030

CALCULATIONS:

  • 31,620 DOJ-measured robberies / 222,795 FBI-measured robberies = 3.3
  • 284,857,030 people aged 12 and older / 731,620 robberies = 389

[248] Chart constructed with data from:

Dataset: “Estimated Offenses, United States, 1960–2008.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services. Sent from the FBI to Just Facts on June 15, 2010.

Report: “1995 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 13, 1996. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1976–1995.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1996 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 20, 1997. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1977–1996.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1997 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 7, 1998. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1978–1997.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1998 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 12, 1999. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1979–1998.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1999 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 23, 2000. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1980–1999” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2000 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, July 27, 2001. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1981–2000.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2001 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 10, 2002. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1982–2001.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2002 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 8, 2003. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1983–2002.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2003 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 4, 2004. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate, 1984–2003.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2004 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 2, 2005. <www2.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1985–2004.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2005 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2006. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986–2005.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2006 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2007. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1987–2006.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2007 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2008. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1988–2007.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2008 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2009. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1989–2008.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2009 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2010. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1990–2009.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2010 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2011. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1991–2010.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2011 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2012. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1992–2011.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2012 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2013. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1993–2012.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2013 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2014. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1994–2013.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2014 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2015. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1995–2014.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2015 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2016. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1996–2015.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2016 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2017. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1997–2016.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2017 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2018. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1998–2017.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2018 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2019. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1999–2018.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2019 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2020. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1999–2018.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2020 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2021. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2001–2020.” <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “The Transition to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS): A Comparison of 2020 and 2021 NIBRS Estimates.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2022. <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “2022 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2023. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2003–2022.” <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2004–2023.” <www.justfacts.com>

[249] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 593–595 (of PDF):

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, law enforcement agencies can clear, or “close,” offenses in one of two ways: by arrest or by exceptional means. Although an agency may administratively close a case, that does not necessarily mean that the agency can clear the offense for UCR purposes. To clear an offense within the UCR Program’s guidelines, the reporting agency must adhere to certain criteria, which are outlined in the following text. (Note: The UCR Program does not distinguish between offenses cleared by arrest and those cleared by exceptional means in collecting or publishing data via the traditional Summary Reporting System.)

Cleared by Arrest

In the UCR Program, a law enforcement agency reports that an offense is cleared by arrest, or solved for crime reporting purposes, when three specific conditions have been met. The three conditions are that at least one person has been:

• Arrested.

• Charged with the commission of the offense.

• Turned over to the court for prosecution (whether following arrest, court summons, or police notice).

In its clearance calculations, the UCR Program counts the number of offenses that are cleared, not the number of persons arrested. The arrest of one person may clear several crimes, and the arrest of many persons may clear only one offense. In addition, some clearances that an agency records in a particular calendar year, such as 2022, may pertain to offenses that occurred in previous years.

Cleared by Exceptional Means

In certain situations, elements beyond law enforcement’s control prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender. When this occurs, the agency can clear the offense exceptionally. Law enforcement agencies must meet the following four conditions in order to clear an offense by exceptional means.

The agency must have:

• Identified the offender.

• Gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution.

• Identified the offender’s exact location so that the suspect could be taken into custody immediately.

• Encountered a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that prohibits the agency from arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender.

Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense. In the UCR Program, the recovery of property alone does not clear an offense. …

When considering clearances of violent crimes, 57.8 percent of murder offenses, 46.1 percent of aggravated assault offenses, 26.9 percent of rape offenses, and 27.6 percent of robbery offenses were cleared.

[250] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2018.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 2021. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases. All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. …

They exclude persons who were released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. This report is based on NCRP data from 44 states…. In 2018, these states were responsible for 97% of all persons released from state prisons nationwide. Annually administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the NCRP obtains individual-level records from state departments of corrections on prisoners entering and leaving prison custody or community supervision. …

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before Initial Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2018

Most serious offense

Percent of total releases

Time served in prisona

Medianb

Mean

All offenses

100%

1.3 yrs.

2.7 yrs.

Violent

29.8%

2.4 yrs.

4.8 yrs.

Murder

1.7

17.5

17.8

Non-negligent manslaughterc

0.4

7

8.2

Negligent manslaughter

0.8

3.7

5.3

Rape

1.5

7.2

9.6

Other sexual assault

3.4

3.6

5

Robbery

7.4

3.2

4.8

Assault

11.6

1.4

2.5

Other violentd

2.3

1.5

3.5

Property

25.7%

13 mos.

21 mos.

Burglary

10.6

17

27

Larceny-theft

6.8

11

17

Motor-vehicle theft

1.5

11

15

Fraude

3.8

11

17

Other propertyf

3

12

20

Drug

24.6%

12 mos.

21 mos.

Possession

8.6

9

13

Trafficking

9.4

17

26

Other drugg

6.6

14

23

Public order

19.2%

13 mos.

21 mos.

Weapons

5.9

15

23

Other public orderh

13.3

12

20

Other/unspecified

0.7%

16 mos.

31 mos.

Number of releases

376,993

~

~

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Initial release does not refer to first-time offenders but to offenders’ first release from a given sentence (whether they are first-time offenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or less; those with missing values for most serious offense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 3,266 deaths in 2018.
~ Not applicable.
a Excludes time served in jail.
b The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers.
c Includes unspecified and other homicides.
d Includes kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, hit and run with injury, and other unknown violent offenses.
e Includes forgery and embezzlement.
f Includes arson, receiving and trafficking of stolen property, destruction of property, trespassing, and other unknown property offenses.
g Includes forging prescriptions, possession of drug paraphernalia, and other unspecified offenses.
h Includes DUIs/DWIs; court offenses; commercialized vice, morals, and decency offenses; liquor law violations; and other public-order offenses.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2018

[251] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2016.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2018. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases.

All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. They exclude persons who had been released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. …

Ninety-six percent of violent offenders released in 2016, including 70% of those sentenced for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, served less than 20 years before initial release from state prison. …

By offense type, the median time served was 13.4 years for murder, 2.2 years for violent crimes excluding murder….

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before First Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2016

Most Serious Offense

Time Served in Prisona

Medianb [Years]

Violent

2.4

Murderc

13.4

Note: … First release does not refer to first-time offenders but to offenders’ first release from a given sentence (whether they are first-time offenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or less; those with missing values for most serious offense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 2,755 deaths in 2016. …

a Excludes time served in jail.
b The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers.
c Includes non-negligent manslaughter. …

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2016.

[252] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 93:

Drug abuse violations―The violation of laws prohibiting the production, distribution, and/or use of certain controlled substances. The unlawful cultivation, manufacture, distribution, sale, purchase, use, possession, transportation, or importation of any controlled drug or narcotic substance. Arrests for violations of state and local laws, specifically those relating to the unlawful possession, sale, use, growing, manufacturing, and making of narcotic drugs. The following drug categories are specified: opium or cocaine and their derivatives (morphine, heroin, codeine); marijuana; synthetic narcotics―manufactured narcotics that can cause true addiction (Demerol, methadone); and dangerous nonnarcotic drugs (barbiturates, Benzedrine). …

Driving under the influence―Driving or operating a motor vehicle or common carrier while mentally or physically impaired as the result of consuming an alcoholic beverage or using a drug or narcotic.

[253] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

NOTE: This report doesn’t mention any drug crimes or driving under the influence.

[254] Webpage: “Terms & Definitions.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed January 15, 2025 at <ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov>

NOTE: This webpage doesn’t mention any drug crimes or driving under the influence.

[255] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 39:

Second, the two programs measure an overlapping but nonidentical set of crimes. The NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] includes, but the UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] Program’s SRS [Summary Reporting System] excludes, sexual assault (completed, attempted, and threatened), attempted robberies, verbal threats of rape, simple assault, and crimes not reported to law enforcement.

[256] Report: “The Nation’s Two Measures of Homicide.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) are part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. …

Page 3:

SHRReporting is Voluntary …

SHRData collection methods … In most states, reports from individual law enforcement agencies are compiled monthly by state-level agencies and then forwarded to the FBI …

[257] Webpage: “NIBRS Estimation.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed January 1, 2025 at <bit.ly>

The UCR [Uniform Crime Report] Program has estimated crime statistics for the nation, its regions, and for states since the 1960s. Estimation is the statistical process which allows inferences to be made about an outcome of interest (e.g., the number of robberies in the United States) in a population, even if information about the outcome is only known for part of that population. With the UCR Program collecting crime data only through NIBRS [National Incident-Based Reporting System], estimates for the referenced geographic areas will—for the first time this year—be exclusively based on NIBRS data submitted for 2021. In addition, with the detailed NIBRS data, other inferences about crime will be available, e.g., age, sex, and race about victims and persons arrested, as well as more estimates for more offenses.

With careful planning and execution by the FBI, in conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a NIBRS Estimation Process was created in anticipation of the move to NIBRS. Historically, estimates were based on data contributed annually by law enforcement agencies that covered 90% or more of the U.S. population. With such a high coverage rate, estimation was a more straightforward process. Initially, as agencies continue to transition to the more comprehensive NIBRS collection method, the program will experience a period of lower participation (for 2021, 65% of population covered). The more robust and complex estimation process to account for unreported data will bridge this gap.

This year, you will notice more information about estimation as the UCR Program assures our users understand our NIBRS estimation process. One example: estimates from NIBRS will have confidence intervals (the mean of an estimate plus or minus the variation possible in that estimate) for the first time. However, estimates found to have a level of statistical uncertainty beyond established standards will not be published by the UCR Program.

[258] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 43 (of PDF):

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program provides a nationwide view of crime based on data submissions reported by law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The data submitted to various distinct collections, within the FBI’s UCR Program, detail criminal incidents as well as law enforcement data. For decades, several of these compilations have been published annually. Though each collection presents details of crime or law enforcement data based on data provided by participating agencies, the reports vary in context, participation, and publication criteria.

Crime in the Nation, 2023, includes data received from 16,334 law enforcement agencies that provided data through either the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) or the Summary Reporting System (SRS). These agencies represent 85.2 percent of agencies actively enrolled in the FBI’s UCR Program and cover a combined population of 315,761,680 (94.3 percent) inhabitants. Notably, every city agency covering a population of 1,000,000 or more inhabitants contributed a full 12 months of data to the FBI’s UCR Program in 2023.

[259] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 3–4 (of PDF):

Caution to users

Data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data in this publication and those in prior issues of Crime in the United States. Because of differing levels of participation from year to year and reporting problems that require the FBI to estimate crime counts for certain contributors, some data may not be comparable from year to year. In addition, this publication may contain updates to data provided in prior years’ publications.

Page 40 (of PDF):

By understanding the strengths and limitations of each program, it is possible to use UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] and NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] to achieve a greater understanding of crime trends and the nature of crime in the United States. For example, changes in police procedures, shifting attitudes toward crime and police, and other societal changes can affect the extent to which people report and law enforcement agencies record crime. NCVS and UCR data can be used in complementary ways to explore why trends in reported and police-recorded crime may differ.

[260] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 638 (of PDF):

Table 29. Estimated Number of Arrests, United States, 2023

Drug abuse violations [=] 870,874 …

Driving under the influence [=] 805,581

[261] Report: “Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results From the 2023 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 2024. <www.samhsa.gov>

Page 3:

Survey Background

NSDUH [National Survey on Drug Use and Health] is an annual survey sponsored by SAMHSA [Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration] within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). NSDUH covers residents of households and people in noninstitutional group settings (e.g., shelters, boarding houses, college dormitories, migratory workers’ camps, halfway houses). The survey excludes people with no fixed address (e.g., people who are homeless and not in shelters), military personnel on active duty, and residents of institutional group settings, such as jails, nursing homes, mental health institutions, and long-term care hospitals.

Data Collection in 2023

NSDUH employs a probability sample designed to be representative of both the nation as a whole and for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. …

A full sample was available from all 4 quarters in 2023. Screening was completed for 198,246 addresses, and the final sample consisted of 67,679 completed interviews. Based on information from the household screenings, there were 14,305 interviews from adolescents aged 12 to 17 and 53,374 interviews from adults aged 18 or older.

Page 62: “Estimates presented in this report have been weighted to reflect characteristics of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population aged 12 or older in the United States.”

Page 12:

Past year illicit drug use includes any use of marijuana or cannabis products (including smoking, vaping, and other modes of use), cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, and methamphetamine, as well as misuse of prescription stimulants, tranquilizers or sedatives (e.g., benzodiazepines),32 or pain relievers (see the section on the Misuse of Prescription Psychotherapeutic Drugs for the definition of “misuse”). …

Among people aged 12 or older in 2023, 70.5 million people used illicit drugs in the past year (Figure 12). The most commonly used illicit drug in the past year was marijuana, which was used by 61.8 million people. In the past year, 8.8 million people used hallucinogens, and 8.6 million people misused prescription pain relievers. Smaller numbers of people were past year users or misusers of the other illicit drugs shown in Figure 12.33

Page 17:

Misuse of Psychotherapeutic Drugs

The 2023 NSDUH assessed the use and misuse of psychotherapeutic drugs currently or recently available by prescription in the United States, including prescription stimulants, tranquilizers or sedatives (e.g., benzodiazepines), and pain relievers. In NSDUH, misuse of prescription drugs was defined as use in any way not directed by a doctor, including use without a prescription of one’s own; use in greater amounts, more often, or longer than told to take a drug; or use in any other way not directed by a doctor. Misuse of over-the-counter drugs was not included.

Of the prescription drugs presented in this report, prescription pain relievers were the most commonly misused prescription drug by people aged 12 or older. The 14.4 million people in 2023 who misused prescription psychotherapeutic drugs in the past year included 8.6 million people who misused prescription pain relievers, 4.7 million people who misused prescription tranquilizers or sedatives, and 3.9 million people who misused prescription stimulants (Figure 12).

NOTE: For facts about what constitutes a scientific survey and the factors that impact their accuracy, visit Just Facts’ research on Deconstructing Polls & Surveys.

[262] Report: “The Federal Status of Marijuana and the Policy Gap with States.” Congressional Research Service. Updated May 2, 2024. <crsreports.congress.gov>

Marijuana is a psychoactive drug that generally consists of leaves and flowers of the cannabis sativa plant. Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA; 21 U.S.C. §801 et seq.), and thus is strictly regulated by federal authorities. In contrast, over the last several decades, most states and territories have deviated from a comprehensive prohibition of marijuana and have laws and policies allowing for some cultivation, sale, distribution, and possession of marijuana. …

Marijuana Control Under Federal Law

Due to its status as a Schedule I controlled substance, the CSA currently prohibits the manufacture, distribution, dispensation, and possession of marijuana except in federal government-approved research studies. The CSA definition of marijuana was revised in 2018, with the removal of hemp (cannabis containing no more than a 0.3% concentration of the psychoactive compound delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol [delta-9-THC]) from the definition. Cannabidiol (CBD) is derived from hemp or manufactured in a laboratory and is not considered a controlled substance. In April 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) proposed to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA. For a discussion of the legal consequences of rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11105, Legal Consequences of Rescheduling Marijuana.

Marijuana use may subject an individual to a number of consequences under federal law in addition to the penalties for a conviction of a marijuana-related offense. Consequences for marijuana use can include, but are not limited to, the inability to purchase and possess a firearm and being ineligible for federal housing, certain visas, and federal employment and military service.

State Cannabis Law and Policy Trends

It is increasingly common for states to have laws and policies allowing for medical or recreational use of marijuana—activities that violate the CSA. Evolving state-level policies on marijuana also include decriminalization measures.

Medical Marijuana in States

In 1996, California became the first state to amend its drug laws to allow for the medicinal use of marijuana. As of May 2, 2024, 38 states, the District of Columbia (DC), Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have comprehensive laws and policies allowing for the medicinal use of marijuana. Nine additional states allow for “limited-access medical cannabis,” which refers to low-THC cannabis or CBD oil. Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, and American Samoa do not allow for the use of medical marijuana or low-THC cannabis.

Current federal law does not recognize the distinction some states make between the medical and recreational uses of marijuana. Marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I controlled substance reflects a finding that marijuana has a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use in the United States. Moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, without other legal changes, would not bring the state-legal recreational marijuana industry into compliance with the CSA. If marijuana were moved to Schedule III, it could theoretically be used for medical purposes consistent with federal law. However, Schedule III controlled substances may only legally be dispensed pursuant to a valid prescription and, as discussed below, marijuana is not currently a prescription drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Recreational Marijuana in States

Recreational marijuana legalization measures remove all state-imposed penalties for specified activities involving marijuana. As of May 2, 2024, 24 states, DC, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands have enacted laws allowing for the recreational use of marijuana. State recreational marijuana initiatives have legalized the possession of specific quantities of marijuana by individuals aged 21 and over, and (with the exception of DC and the states that only recently enacted these measures) established state-administered regulatory schemes for the sale of marijuana. Activities related to recreational marijuana are illegal under the CSA and would remain so if marijuana moves to Schedule III.

Decriminalization

Over the last 50 years, many states and municipalities have decriminalized marijuana. Marijuana decriminalization differs markedly from legalization. A state or municipality decriminalizes conduct by removing the accompanying criminal penalties or by lowering them (e.g., making covered conduct a low-level misdemeanor with no possibility of jail time). Civil penalties may remain (e.g., someone possessing marijuana may receive a ticket with a fine).

 Marijuana as Medicine and Federal Involvement

Under federal law, a drug must be approved by FDA before it may be marketed or prescribed in the United States. To date, FDA has not approved a marketing application for marijuana for the treatment of any condition (as it remains a Schedule I substance); however, FDA has approved one cannabis-derived drug and three marijuana-related drugs that are available by prescription. Epidiolex, which contains CBD as its active ingredient, is approved for the treatment of seizures associated with two rare and severe forms of epilepsy.

FDA has also approved two drugs containing synthetic THC (Marinol [and its generic versions] and Syndros) and one drug containing a synthetic substance that is structurally similar to THC but not present in marijuana (Cesamet). These products are used to treat nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy as well as loss of appetite for individuals with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Additional drugs containing marijuana-derived THC and CBD are reportedly being developed. …

Federal Response to State Divergence

Although state laws do not affect the status of marijuana under federal law or the ability of the federal government to enforce it, state legalization initiatives have spurred a number of questions regarding potential implications for federal laws and policies, including federal drug regulation, and access to banking and other services for marijuana businesses. Thus far, the federal response to states’ legalizing marijuana largely has been to allow states to implement their own laws. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has nonetheless reaffirmed that marijuana growth, possession, and trafficking remain crimes under federal law irrespective of states’ marijuana laws. Federal law enforcement has generally focused its efforts on criminal networks involved in the illicit marijuana trade.

Federal banking regulators have yet to issue any formal guidance in response to state and local marijuana legalization efforts; however, in February 2014 the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued guidance on financial institutions’ suspicious activity report requirements when serving marijuana businesses. For broader discussion of this issue, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11076, Marijuana Banking: Legal Issues and the SAFE(R) Banking Acts.

[263] Report: “Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results From the 2023 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 2024. <www.samhsa.gov>

“Table 1.1A. Types of Illicit Drug Use in Lifetime, Past Year, and Past Month: Among People Aged 12 or Older; Numbers in Thousands, 2022 and 2023.” <www.samhsa.gov>

[264] Report: “Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results From the 2023 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 2024. <www.samhsa.gov>

“Table 1.1B. Types of Illicit Drug Use in Lifetime, Past Year, and Past Month: Among People Aged 12 or Older; Percentages, 2022 and 2023.” <www.samhsa.gov>

[265] Paper: “Alcohol-Impaired Driving Among Adults—USA, 2014–2018.” By Vaughn Barry, Amy Schumacher, and Erin Sauber-Schatz. Injury Prevention, June 2022. <injuryprevention.bmj.com>

Alcohol-impaired driving (AID) crashes accounted for 10 511 deaths in the USA in 2018, or 29% of all motor vehicle-related crash deaths. This study describes self-reported AID in the USA during 2014, 2016 and 2018 and determines AID-related demographic and behavioural characteristics.

Data were from the nationally representative Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System [BRFSS]. Adults were asked “During the past 30 days, how many times have you driven when you have had perhaps too much to drink?” …

Nationally, 1.7% of adults engaged in AID during the preceding 30 days in 2014, 2.1% in 2016 and 1.7% in 2018. Estimated annual number of AID episodes varied across year (2014: 111 million, 2016: 186 million, 2018: 147 million) and represented 3.7 million, 4.9 million and 4.0 million adults, respectively. …

The AID prevalence, episodes and rates reported here are likely underestimates of true AID prevalence in the USA for several reasons. First, BRFSS surveys only those aged ≥18 years, so AID episodes of younger drivers are not included. Second, BRFSS respondents were asked about times when they thought they had had too much to drink, and it is possible that respondents had times where they were impaired but did not recognise it. This might be particularly true for those with a history of AID.36 Third, respondents could have felt a social stigma associated with AID, which caused them to underreport AID. The 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that 8% of the US population aged ≥16 years (which is an estimated 20.5 million people) reported driving under the influence of alcohol in 2018.37 This estimate is roughly five times greater than the 2018 BRFSS estimate. This is likely partly because the National Survey on Drug Use and Health included 16 and 17-year-old participants and partly because it used Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interview software (i.e., computer-administered survey) methodology, which might heighten respondents’ sense of privacy and, thereby, increase their willingness to report AID compared with BRFSS’s telephone survey methodology.38 39 Another study similarly found that passengers who report riding with a drinking driver might provide a more accurate prevalence of AID than drivers.40

There are other limitations to this analysis. First, we assumed that what people reported over the past 30 days represented their experience over the past 12 months. This might not be a reasonable assumption, especially because AID is more common during certain seasons and holidays. However, BRFSS interviews took place year-round, likely minimising any seasonal bias. Second, BRFSS only asked about the number of times a person drove after consuming too much alcohol and not the total miles travelled or length of trip time, which might be more relevant but less precise (because it might be harder for people to self-report accurately) measures of exposure. Third, the BRFSS AID question asked whether respondents perceived that they had had too much to drink before driving, and it is unclear how this might relate to crash risk or blood alcohol concentrations. In the USA, it is illegal for a driver to have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 g/dL or higher, except in Utah where it is illegal to have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05 g/dL or higher. However, studies have shown that even small amounts of alcohol (eg, <0.08 g/dL) can reduce motor skills and reaction time.22 41 Finally, there could be unknown differences between people who report AID and people who die or are injured in an AID-related crash.

[266] Paper: “Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis, Alcohol, and Illicit Drugs Among Adults in the United States From 2016 to 2020.” By Matthew G. Myers, Erin E. Bonar, and Kipling M. Bohnert. Addictive Behaviors, May 2023. <www.sciencedirect.com>

We used nationally-representative National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2016–2020) data to derive prevalence estimates of past-year DUIC [driving under the influence of cannabis], DUIA [driving under the influence of alcohol], DUID [driving under the influence of other drugs], and DUI of any substance among non-institutionalized US adults and among those reporting respective past-year substance use. Prevalence estimates and adjusted logistic regressions characterized temporal trends of these behaviors among US adults, among those with respective past-year substance use, and among stratified demographic subpopulations. …

Although DUI is prominent, with 10.3% of US adults reporting DUI of any substance in 2020, DUI behaviors across subpopulations and substances showed varying trends.

[267] Paper: “Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis and Alcohol: Evidence From a National Sample of Young Drivers.” By Hang Hai and others. Addictive Behaviors, December 2023. <www.sciencedirect.com>

We draw from a large, nationally-representative sample to provide up-to-date evidence as to the prevalence and key criminal justice, substance use, and behavioral health correlates of DUI of cannabis and alcohol among drivers ages 16 to 20 in the United States. …

We used data from the 2020 and 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (young drivers ages 16–20; N=12,863). All analyses—survey adjusted prevalence estimates, logistic regression—were conducted using Stata SE 17.0 and weighted to account for the study’s stratified cluster sampling design. …

The prevalence of DUI-cannabis for the full sample—including those not endorsing past-year use—was 6.3%. Among youth endorsing past-year cannabis use, 24.5% reported DUI of cannabis. In the full sample and among cannabis users, DUI-cannabis risk was elevated among older and male youth. The prevalence of DUI-alcohol was 2.6% among all youth and 6.1% among youth reporting past-year alcohol consumption. …

Estimates indicate that more than one million young drivers each year are placing their lives and those of others at risk by operating motor vehicles after consuming cannabis and/or alcohol. …

Study findings should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, all data were based on respondent self-report. As such, some respondents may have under or over reported their behavior related to DUI. Second, the NSDUH data did not allow us to measure the number of times an individual took part in cannabis or alcohol impaired driving nor do they allow us to account for the severity of impairment. Third, all data are cross-sectional and therefore we cannot interpret these relationships causally. Fourth, these data were collected during some of the most intense moments in the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, some caution is warranted as to the degree to which these findings may be uniquely shaped by their historical context.

[268] Calculated with data from:

a) “Drug Seizure Statistics.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last modified October 21, 2022. <www.cbp.gov>

b) Paper: “Comparison of Acute Lethal Toxicity of Commonly Abused Psychoactive Substances” By Robert S. Gable. Addiction, July 2004. Pages 686–696. <www.researchgate.net>

Pages 689–690: “Table 1. Estimated lethal and effective doses of abused psychoactive substances”

c) Book: “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices.” U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2012. <www.nist.gov>

d) Dataset: “Table 7.1. Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and Chained Dollars.” U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised September 29, 2022. <apps.bea.gov>

Line 18: “Population (Midperiod, Thousands)”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[269] Report: “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 2003–2023.” By Matthew F. Garnett and Arialdi M. Miniño. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, December 2024. <www.cdc.gov>

“In 2023, 105,007 drug overdose deaths occurred….”

[270] Calculated with data from the report: “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 2003–2023.” By Matthew F. Garnett and Arialdi M. Miniño. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, December 2024. <www.cdc.gov>

“In 2023, 105,007 drug overdose deaths occurred…. Of the drug overdose deaths in 2023, 92.6% were unintentional, 4.4% were suicides, 2.8% were of undetermined intent, and less than 1.0% were homicides.”

CALCULATION: 105,007 overdose deaths × 92.6% unintentional = 97,236

[271] Calculated with data from:

a) Report: “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 2003–2023.” By Matthew F. Garnett and Arialdi M. Miniño. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, December 2024. <www.cdc.gov>

“In 2023, 105,007 drug overdose deaths occurred, resulting in an age-adjusted rate of 31.3 deaths per 100,000 standard population.”

b) Report: “Characteristics of Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Opioids and Stimulants — 24 States and the District of Columbia, January–June 2019.” By Julie O’Donnell and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 4, 2020. <www.cdc.gov>

“Illicitly manufactured fentanyls (IMFs), heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine (alone or in combination) were involved in 83.8% of overdose deaths during January–June 2019….”

CALCULATION: 105,007 overdose deaths × 83.8% illicitly manufactured = 87,996

[272] Calculated with data from:

a) Report: “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 2003–2023.” By Matthew F. Garnett and Arialdi M. Miniño. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, December 2024. <www.cdc.gov>

“In 2023, 105,007 drug overdose deaths occurred…. Of the drug overdose deaths in 2023, 92.6% were unintentional, 4.4% were suicides, 2.8% were of undetermined intent, and less than 1.0% were homicides.”

b) Report: “Characteristics of Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Opioids and Stimulants — 24 States and the District of Columbia, January–June 2019.” By Julie O’Donnell and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 4, 2020. <www.cdc.gov>

“Illicitly manufactured fentanyls (IMFs), heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine (alone or in combination) were involved in 83.8% of overdose deaths during January–June 2019….”

CALCULATION: 105,007 overdose deaths × 92.6% unintentional × 83.8% illicitly manufactured = 81,484

[273] Calculated with data from:

a) Report: “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999–2020.” By Holly Hedegaard and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, December 2021. <www.cdc.gov>

“Data Table for Figure 1. Age-Adjusted Drug Overdose Death Rates, by Sex: United States.” <www.cdc.gov>

“Total 1999 [=] 6.1 Deaths per 100,000”

b) Report: “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 2003–2023.” By Matthew F. Garnett and Arialdi M. Miniño. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, December 2024. <www.cdc.gov>

Page 1: “In 2023, 105,007 drug overdose deaths occurred, resulting in an age-adjusted rate of 31.3 deaths per 100,000 standard population….”

Page 9: “Data table for Figure 1. Age-adjusted drug overdose death rate, by sex: United States, 2003–2023.”

CALCULATION: 31.3 / 6.1 = 5.1

[274] “WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on Covid-19.” World Health Organization, March 11, 2020. <bit.ly>

[Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus:] …

WHO [World Health Organization] has been assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction.

We have therefore made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic.

[275] Press release: “COVID-19 and Other Global Health Issues.” World Health Organization, May 5, 2023. <www.justfacts.com>

[Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus:] …

Yesterday, the Emergency Committee met for the 15th time and recommended to me that I declare an end to the public health emergency of international concern. I have accepted that advice. It’s therefore with great hope that I declare COVID-19 over as a global health emergency.

[276] Calculated with data from:

a) Report: “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 2003–2023.” By Matthew F. Garnett and Arialdi M. Miniño. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, December 2024. <www.cdc.gov>

b) Webpage: “U.S. and World Population Clock.” U.S. Census Bureau, November 21, 2023. <www.census.gov>

c) Report: “Provisional Life Expectancy Estimates for 2022.” By Elizabeth Arias and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, November 2023. <www.cdc.gov>

d) Report: “Characteristics of Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Opioids and Stimulants — 24 States and the District of Columbia, January–June 2019.” By Julie O’Donnell and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 4, 2020. <www.cdc.gov>

NOTES:

  • The methodology to compute the lifetime likelihood of a dying from a drug overdose was created by a licensed actuary. The actuary doubled-checked this methodology using a different approach that yielded the same results. The results were also tripled-checked by a Ph.D. mathematician and quadrupled-checked by a Ph.D. biostatician.
  • An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available here.

[277] Calculated with data from:

a) Report: “Deaths: Final Data for 2021.” By y Sherry L. Murphy and others. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, October 4, 2024. <www.cdc.gov>

b) Dataset: “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for the United States: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2023.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed January 28, 2025 at <www2.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available here.

[278] Article: “Scientific Survey Shows Voters Across the Political Spectrum Are Ideologically Deluded.” By James D. Agresti. Just Facts, April 16, 2021. <www.justfacts.com>

The survey was comprised of 21 questions posed to U.S. residents who regularly vote. It was conducted just after the 2020 presidential election by Triton Polling & Research, an academic research firm that applied scientific survey methods to optimize accuracy. …

The responses were obtained through live telephone surveys of 1,000 likely voters across the U.S. during November 4–11, 2020. This sample size is large enough to accurately represent the U.S. population. Likely voters are people who say they vote “every time there is an opportunity” or in “most” elections.

The margin of sampling error for all respondents is ±3% with at least 95% confidence. The margins of error for the subsets are 5% for Biden voters, 5% for Trump voters, 4% for males, 5% for females, 9% for 18 to 34 year olds, 4% for 35 to 64 year olds, and 5% for 65+ year olds. …

Question 18: At the current rate of drug overdose deaths in the United States, what is the average lifetime chance of dying from a drug overdose? About 1 in 100,000, about 1 in 1,000, or about 1 in 100?

Correct Answer: About 1 in 100

More than 70,000 people were killed by drug overdoses in 2019. If this rate continues, one in every 59 people currently alive in the U.S. will eventually die of a drug overdose.

Drug overdoses rob an average of about 38 years of life from each victim, and 88% of these deaths are unintentional.

Since 1999, drug overdose death rates in the U.S. have risen by 3.5 times. This occurred while policies that were supposed to decrease these deaths were broadly enacted, such as legalizing marijuana and Obamacare’s mandate that health plans cover treatments for substance abuse.

Correct answer given by 21% of all voters, 21% of Biden voters, and 20% of Trump voters.

NOTE: For facts about what constitutes a scientific survey and the factors that impact their accuracy, visit Just Facts’ research on Deconstructing Polls & Surveys.

[279] Dataset: “Just Facts’ 2020 U.S. Nationwide Survey.” Just Facts, April 2021. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 4:

Q19. At the current rate of drug overdose deaths in the United States, what is the average lifetime chance of dying from a drug overdose?

About 1 in 100,000 … Percent [=] 28.7

About 1 in 1,000 … Percent [=] 40.1

About 1 in 100 … Percent [=] 20.7

Unsure … Percent [=] 10.5

[280] Paper: “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Incidence and Health Care Costs in the United States, 2016.” By Andrea E. Strahan and others. JAMA Pediatrics, December 16, 2019. <jamanetwork.com>

Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is a withdrawal syndrome primarily occurring in infants with in utero exposure to opioids. Neonatal abstinence syndrome is an important indicator of the immediate effect of the opioid crisis. …

The study data came from the 2016 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Kids’ Inpatient Database (KID), a nationally representative sample of all-payer pediatric discharges. …

The overall incidence rate of NAS was 6.7 per 1000 in-hospital births in 2016 (Table 1); rates were highest among American Indian/Alaska Native individuals (15.9 per 1000) and non-Hispanic white individuals (10.5 per 1000), the lowest income quartile (9.3 per 1000), rural areas (10.6 per 1000), and the Northeast (9.5 per 1000). Infants with NAS had a 15.9-day (20.4-day) mean (SD) length of stay and total overall hospitalization costs were $572.7 million (Table 2).

[281] Paper: “The Aggregate Cost of Crime in the United States.” By David A. Anderson. Journal of Law and Economics, November 2021. <www.journals.uchicago.edu>

Strahan et al. (2020) report that 6.7 of 1,000 babies born in the United States suffer from neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), which results from prenatal exposure to opioids and other drugs. The average of the estimated range for the lifetime cost of care for individuals with prenatal exposure to drugs or alcohol in Kalotra (2002) is $1.54 million. Of the 3,745,540 births in 2019 (Hamilton, Martin, and Osterman 2020), the NAS rate indicates an estimated 25,095 births of drug-exposed babies. The product of the average lifetime cost and the 2019 NAS births yields an estimated $38.7 billion total lifetime cost of NAS births in 2019. …

[282] Report: “Alcohol-Impaired Driving.” U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, August 2024. <crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov>

Drivers are considered to be alcohol-impaired when their blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) are .08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatal traffic crash involving a driver with a BAC of .08 g/dL or higher is considered to be an alcohol-impaired-driving crash, and fatalities occurring in those crashes are considered to be alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities. …

Estimates of alcohol-impaired driving are generated using BAC values reported to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and BAC values imputed when they are not reported. … In all cases throughout this fact sheet, use of the term does not indicate that a crash or a fatality was caused by alcohol impairment, only that an alcohol-impaired driver was involved in the crash.

In 2022 there were 13,524 fatalities in motor vehicle traffic crashes in which at least one driver was alcohol-impaired. This represented 32 percent of all traffic fatalities in the United States for the year. …

The 21- to 24-year-old age group had the highest percentage (29%) of alcohol-impaired drivers involved in fatal traffic crashes compared to other age groups in 2022.

In 2022 there were almost 4 male alcohol-impaired drivers involved for every female alcohol-impaired driver involved. …

In 2022 among the 13,524 alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities, 67 percent (9,047) were in traffic crashes in which at least one driver had a BAC of .15 g/dL or higher.

The rate of alcohol impairment among drivers involved in fatal traffic crashes in 2022 was nearly three times higher at night than during the day. …

17 percent of all drivers involved in fatal traffic crashes during the week were alcohol-impaired, compared to 29 percent on weekends. …

All 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have set a threshold making it illegal to drive with a BAC of .08 g/dL or higher. Note: Utah set a lower threshold of .05 g/dL or higher that went into effect on December 30, 2018. In addition, people under 21 are legally prohibited from drinking alcohol (except in Puerto Rico where the legal drinking age is 18). Operating a commercial vehicle at a BAC of .04 g/dL or above is a violation of Federal regulations and may result in criminal charges.

[283] Report: “Alcohol and Drug Prevalence Among Seriously or Fatally Injured Road Users.” By F.D. Thomas and others. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, December 2022. <rosap.ntl.bts.gov>

Page 1:

Over the last few decades, there has been increased interest in how drugs other than alcohol may be affecting roadway safety due to several factors. First, in the United States the topic has gained prominence as an increasing number of States have legalized some form of cannabis consumption. Second, the “opioid epidemic” has prompted concerns that this class of drugs may be affecting drivers and other roadway users given large increases in use among the general public. Third, there are indications that prescription drug use is increasing. It is not fully understood how these changes may be affecting safety on America’s roads. Determining whether these factors and others have translated to more drugged driving has required an expanded research focus that includes consideration of drugs other than alcohol.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began testing for drugs other than alcohol as part of its 2007 National Roadside Survey (NRS). …

While these studies have provided substantial insights into drugged driving, a knowledge gap exists regarding alcohol and other drug prevalence among drivers and other road users—pedestrians, bicyclists—who are seriously or fatally injured in crashes in the United States. The current study sought to fill the gaps in research by examining alcohol and other drug prevalence among a large sample of seriously injured drivers and other crash victims presenting to seven selected trauma centers and fatally injured crash victims presenting directly to four medical examiners (MEs). The drugs of interest were those known or suspected to impair cognitive and motor skills important for driving safely.

Pages 39–40:

This study analyzed blood specimens from a large number of seriously or fatally injured roadway users from selected trauma centers and MEs in the United States to understand more about drug prevalence among these populations. … The specimens were made available as part of normal treatment or autopsy procedures shortly after crashes that allowed for the best opportunity to determine whether drugs were likely in the people’s systems at the time of the crashes in which they were injured or killed.

Of the specimens provided, 7,279 were confirmed to be adult roadway users of interest (drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and passengers) for whom enough blood was made available within 6 hours of the crash event for complete toxicological analysis. …

… The results in this report focused on drug prevalence for drivers (including motorcycle operators) combined across the seven trauma centers (n = 4,243) for the entire study period, and separately for drivers combined across the four participating ME offices (n = 555). The study found that 54.4% of the trauma center driver cases tested positive for one or more drugs on the study’s panel with cannabinoids being the most prevalent (25.0%) followed by alcohol (21.6%). Stimulants (9.8%), opioids (8.6%), and sedatives (7.5%) were also frequently detected among trauma center cases. results also showed that 18.1% of the trauma center driver cases tested positive for two or more categories of drugs (see Table 8).

Drug prevalence was high among drivers who died at the scene of a crash and presented to the MEs participating in this study (see Table 9). Overall, 68.8% of the ME driver cases tested positive for one or more drugs with alcohol the most prevalent (38.9%) followed by cannabinoids (31.7%). Opioids (13.0%), stimulants (12.6%), sedatives (7.2%), OTC (4.5%), and other drugs (4.9%) were also frequently detected among ME driver cases. Also, 33.9% of the ME driver cases tested positive for two or more drug categories.

Page 44:

Limitations

This study selected seven sites that included high-volume trauma centers servicing large catchment areas, and was able to enlist MEs at four of those sites to assist the study. These sites were not a random sample of all Level 1 trauma centers across the country. As such, no inferences can be made regarding the applicability of the study findings beyond the populations served by these trauma centers and MEs. Because of the rolling start to data collection, inherent patient flow rate differences, and availability of staff during the public health emergency, some sites provided more specimens to the study than others. In addition, the onset of the COVID-19 public health emergency meant that some sites provided cases before the pandemic while others only provide cases during. These issues limit any comparisons across sites and certainly introduces some level of bias in the reported raw prevalence rates when data are combined across all sites for the entire study period. In addition, the ME results are biased toward fatalities in Maryland where the ME’s office services the entire State. Because of this, 73.9% of all road user ME cases came from Maryland.

This study operated under the assumption that on-site research staff at the trauma centers and MEs checked the criteria for inclusion for each participant. Although strict criteria for inclusion were provided, it is possible that some cases did not meet the time from crash criterion due to a lack of information from EMS or unavailability of a crash report, especially during the COVID-19 public health emergency when access to patient care areas was greatly restricted for research of this type. The study did examine drug prevalence rates for included cases without a known time from crash to blood draw and found the prevalence patterns to be virtually identical to those when a time could be calculated. Still, future research will need to take this issue into consideration if similar restrictions on access to patient care areas remain in place.

As noted in the report, this study had to change its specimen collection and processing approach at the trauma centers during the public health emergency in order to provide viable specimens to NIH for COVID-19 antibody testing. The change involved first collecting specimens in a lavender-top tube and then splitting the sample into a gray-top for toxicological testing with the remainder in the lavender-top processed for plasma. In theory, the additional preservative found in the lavender-top tube could have affected the detection of drugs. Study staff closely monitored the patterns of results after the change in procedures and concluded the impact on study results was likely minimal if there was any impact at all. More laboratory research is needed to determine the degree to which such procedures could affect toxicological findings.

Overall, this study’s results can only be used to describe the prevalence of drug positivity among the specific populations sampled and with full awareness of the study’s design limitations. Without a matched control group or other basis for comparison to similar, non-injured, noncrash- involved roadway users, it is not possible to determine if any of the drugs studied here are associated with an increased risk of being seriously injured or killed in a motor vehicle crash. The study results should not be used to imply impairment or increased risk associated with drug presence.

[284] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2018.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 2021. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases. All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. …

They exclude persons who were released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. This report is based on NCRP data from 44 states…. In 2018, these states were responsible for 97% of all persons released from state prisons nationwide. Annually administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the NCRP obtains individual-level records from state departments of corrections on prisoners entering and leaving prison custody or community supervision. …

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before Initial Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2018

Most serious offense

Percent of total releases

Time served in prisona

Medianb

Mean

All offenses

100%

1.3 yrs.

2.7 yrs.

Violent

29.8%

2.4 yrs.

4.8 yrs.

Murder

1.7

17.5

17.8

Non-negligent manslaughterc

0.4

7

8.2

Negligent manslaughter

0.8

3.7

5.3

Rape

1.5

7.2

9.6

Other sexual assault

3.4

3.6

5

Robbery

7.4

3.2

4.8

Assault

11.6

1.4

2.5

Other violentd

2.3

1.5

3.5

Property

25.7%

13 mos.

21 mos.

Burglary

10.6

17

27

Larceny-theft

6.8

11

17

Motor-vehicle theft

1.5

11

15

Fraude

3.8

11

17

Other propertyf

3

12

20

Drug

24.6%

12 mos.

21 mos.

Possession

8.6

9

13

Trafficking

9.4

17

26

Other drugg

6.6

14

23

Public order

19.2%

13 mos.

21 mos.

Weapons

5.9

15

23

Other public orderh

13.3

12

20

Other/unspecified

0.7%

16 mos.

31 mos.

Number of releases

376,993

~

~

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Initial release does not refer to first-time offenders but to offenders’ first release from a given sentence (whether they are first-time offenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or less; those with missing values for most serious offense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 3,266 deaths in 2018.
~ Not applicable.
a Excludes time served in jail.
b The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers.
c Includes unspecified and other homicides.
d Includes kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, hit and run with injury, and other unknown violent offenses.
e Includes forgery and embezzlement.
f Includes arson, receiving and trafficking of stolen property, destruction of property, trespassing, and other unknown property offenses.
g Includes forging prescriptions, possession of drug paraphernalia, and other unspecified offenses.
h Includes DUIs/DWIs; court offenses; commercialized vice, morals, and decency offenses; liquor law violations; and other public-order offenses.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2018

[285] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2016.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2018. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases.

All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. They exclude persons who had been released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. …

Ninety-six percent of violent offenders released in 2016, including 70% of those sentenced for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, served less than 20 years before initial release from state prison. …

By offense type, the median time served was 13.4 years for murder, 2.2 years for violent crimes excluding murder….

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before First Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2016

Most Serious Offense

Time Served in Prisona

Medianb [Years]

Violent

2.4

Murderc

13.4

Note: … First release does not refer to first-time offenders but to offenders’ first release from a given sentence (whether they are first-time offenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or less; those with missing values for most serious offense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 2,755 deaths in 2016. …

a Excludes time served in jail.
b The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers.
c Includes non-negligent manslaughter. …

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2016.

[286] Article: “Man Who Had Enough Fentanyl for 5M to Fatally Overdose Gets Prison.” By Joe Brandt. NJ Advance Media, April 21, 2018. <www.nj.com>

Through shipments mailed from China, Yahmire Boardley accumulated enough fentanyl to kill more than half the population of New Jersey.

When authorities seized Boardley’s supply of the opioid from the caches he kept around Camden last year, they found a total of 31 pounds of the drug.

[287] Paper: “How Many People Does the U.S. Imprison for Drug Use, and Who are They?” By Jonathan P. Caulkins and Eric L. Sevigny. Contemporary Drug Problems, September 1, 2005. <journals.sagepub.com>

Data from the Survey of Inmates in Federal and State Correctional Facilities, 1997 are used to estimate the number of drug-law violators in U.S. prisons solely because of their drug use and not because of involvement in drug distribution or other offenses. …

An important limitation of these estimates is that they pertain only to adult inmates in prison. Incarceration in local jails and juvenile corrections facilities is not considered. A second inherent limitation is that the data are based on self-report. …

… Prosecutors often accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge rather than pursuing conviction for the original charge in a time-consuming trial, so offenders arrested for drug distribution can easily end up being convicted for simple possession. …

At one extreme, someone might argue that only offenders whose current violations all pertain only to use or possession and for whom there is no suggestion of current or previous involvement in distribution should be presumed to be in prison solely for their drug use (5,380 people in column I, row 7). At the other extreme, someone could argue that all drug-law violators whose incarceration is not clearly linked to current drug distribution could be imprisoned drug users (41,047 in column IV total). The reality is probably somewhere in between. Depending on how strict a definition one prefers, one might argue that anywhere from 5,380 to 41,047 people were in prison in the United States in 1997 solely for their drug use, representing 1.9% to 15.0% of all drug-law prisoners and 0.5% to 3.6% of all prison inmates. …

Table 6. Average time in prison per year of drug use and per $1,000 worth of drugs consumed

Per $1,000 Used (in Hours)

Any Cocaine/Crack [=] 6.6

Any Heroin/Opiates [=] 3.4

Any (Meth)-amphetamine [=] 1.5

Marijuana Only [=] 0.05 …

Among those in prison for drug use, almost 90% were involved with cocaine, heroin, and/or (meth)amphetamines. Just 5%–7% possessed only marijuana. Hence the number of marijuana users in prison for their use is perhaps 800–2,300 individuals, or on the order of 0.1%–0.2% of all prison inmates. …

Another implication is that the imprisonment risk due to drug use is low, perhaps on the order of one and a half days per year of use for cocaine, heroin, and (meth)amphetamines, and no more than about an hour per year of use for marijuana.

[288] Paper: “Kingpins or Mules: An Analysis of Drug Offenders Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons.” By Eric L. Sevigny and Jonathan P. Caulkins. Criminology & Public Policy, March 7, 2006. <onlinelibrary.wiley.com>

Pages 406–407:

The Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1997 (BJS, 2000) is a nationally representative survey of federal and state inmates conducted regularly by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). … Between June and October 1997, 4,041 federal and 14,285 state inmates were interviewed using computer assisted personal interviewing methods. Inmates were selected according to a two-stage stratified sampling plan, first selecting prisons and then inmates from a universe of 1,409 state and 127 federal prisons. Total non- response rates were 7.8% and 9.8% at the state and federal levels, respectively. …

We focus on the 4,787 offenders with a controlling drug offense plus 205 additional inmates whose conduct was primarily drug-related but who reported being convicted under nondrug statutes, typically drug-related money laundering, conspiracy, participation in a criminal enterprise, or weapons possession

Pages 421–422:

In summary, very few people appear to be in prison as first-time, nonviolent offenders simply because they used drugs. Indeed, although more than three-quarters of the 10,750 “lowest of the low” drug inmates reported a history of regular drug use or treatment, only 1,409 were convicted for simple drug possession and did not enter a plea agreement or self-report a drug distribution role. Including nonviolent repeat drug offenders who may have been convicted of nondrug offenses increases this estimate to 7,814 and including all repeat offenders (i.e., entire first row of Tables 5a and 5b) to 11,960. For 682 of the 7,814 (8.7%) marijuana was the primary drug involved. These nonviolent, small-quantity (i.e., 10 ounces or less) marijuana possessors who were not involved in drug distribution represent two-tenths of 1% of all drug prisoners and 0.06% of all prisoners.

The 11,960 figure might loosely be thought of as an upper bound on the number of people in prison for drug-law violations because they were users.6 This amounts to only 4.4% of drug offenders in state and federal prisons (and 1.0% of all prisoners), which suggests that decriminalizing drugs (in the sense of eliminating criminal sanctions for drug users) would not greatly reduce prison populations. Indeed, if decriminalization increased drug use by enough to increase the number of people incarcerated for drug distribution by 5%, then decriminalization would lead to a net increase in the number of drug offenders in prison.

Pages 424–425:

Among nonviolent nongun, minor role, and first- or second-time drug-only offenders, 90+% of those in federal prison and 50+% of those in state prison were involved with more than ten retail units (i.e., ten ounces of marijuana, 5 g of crack or cocaine, or 3 g of heroin). The majority of the remaining low-level offenders without prior records appeared to be involved in selling.

Indeed, it appears that no more than about 11,960 drug-inmates were likely to have been incarcerated simply because they were drug users. That is far less than the 102,467 inmates that the Sourcebook of Criminal Justices Statistics reports were convicted of possession based on the same survey data. The difference originates because most of the 102,467 were convicted of possession with intent to distribute, were convicted of simple possession via a plea agreement, possessed quantities beyond those associated with personal consumption, and/or self-reported some drug distribution role. Clearly, the offense of conviction does not always match the offender’s criminal conduct, a point worth remembering when considering sentencing or other policy reforms.

Page 426:

Only about two-tenths of 1% of all drug-inmates appeared to be incarcerated simply for marijuana use. Indeed, if decriminalization increased demand (e.g., because of reduced fines, perceived risk of jail, or sanctions from employers and others outside the criminal justice system), it could plausibly increase the number of suppliers by enough that prison populations could actually increase.

[289] Report: “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 34 States in 2012: A 5-Year Follow-Up Period (2012–2017).” By Matthew R. Durose and Leonardo Antenangeli. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2021. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) used prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program and criminal history data to analyze the post-release offending patterns of former prisoners both within and outside of the state where they were imprisoned. This study randomly sampled about 92,100 released prisoners to represent the approximately 408,300 state prisoners released across 34 states in 2012. These 34 states were responsible for 79% of all persons released from state prisons that year nationwide.

Page 11:

Table 11. Percent of state prisoners released in 34 states in 2012 who were arrested within 5 years following release, by most serious commitment offense and type of post-release arrest offense

Drug

Any [=] 69.8%

Total violent [=] 22.6%

Homicide [=] 0.7%

Rape/sexual assault [=] 0.8%

Robbery [=] 3.2%

Assault [=] 17.4%

Total property [=] 29.7%

Burglary [=] 6.0%

Larceny/motor vehicle theft [=] 16.5%

Fraud/forgery [=] 7.5%

Drug [=] 43.0%

Public order [=] 51.6%

Page 12:

Table 12. Cumulative percent of state prisoners released in 34 states in 2012 who were arrested following release for a type of offense that was the same as or different from the most serious commitment offense …

Arrest after release for different type of offense from most serious commitment offense … Year 5 … Drug [=] 62.0%

Page 24:

In this report, arrests for probation and parole violations were included as public order offenses. Excluding such arrests from the analysis would have a small impact on the recidivism rates. The percentage of state prisoners released across 34 states in 2012 who were arrested at least once within 5 years would be 69.0% if arrests for probation and parole violations were excluded and 70.8% if they were included. In other words, 97% of released prisoners who were arrested during the 5-year follow-up period were arrested for an offense other than a probation or parole violation.

[290] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 53 (of PDF): “Property crime consists of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.”

Page 91 (of PDF):

Burglary (breaking or entering)―The unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft. Attempted forcible entry is included.

Larceny-theft (except motor vehicle theft)―The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another. Examples are thefts of bicycles, motor vehicle parts and accessories, shoplifting, pocket-picking, or the stealing of any property or article that is not taken by force and violence or by fraud. Attempted larcenies are included. Embezzlement, confidence games, forgery, check fraud, etc., are excluded.

Motor vehicle theft―The theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is self-propelled and runs on land surface and not on rails. Motorboats, construction equipment, airplanes, and farming equipment are specifically excluded from this category.

[291] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 4: “Property crime includes burglary or trespassing, motor vehicle theft, and other types of household theft.”

[292] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 39: “UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] includes, but NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] excludes, homicide, arson, commercial crimes, and crimes against children under age 12.”

[293] Webpage: “Terms & Definitions.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed January 15, 2025 at <ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov>

Burglary

Includes unlawful or forcible entry or attempted entry of places, including a permanent residence, other residence (e.g., a hotel room or vacation residence), or other structure (e.g., a garage or shed). Includes only crimes where the offender committed or attempted a theft. …

Motor vehicle theft

The unlawful taking or attempted taking of a self-propelled road vehicle owned by another, with the intent of permanently or temporarily depriving the owner of possession. Excludes vehicle parts. …

Other theft

Includes other unlawful taking or attempted unlawful taking of property or cash without personal contact with the victim. …

Theft

Also called “other theft”. The unlawful taking or attempted unlawful taking of property or cash without personal contact with the victim. Incidents involving theft of property from within a household are classified as theft if the offender has a legal right to be in the house (e.g., a maid, delivery person, or guest). The incident is classified as a burglary or trespassing if the offender has no legal right to be in the house.

Trespassing

Includes unlawful or forcible entry or attempted entry of places, including a permanent residence, other residence (e.g., a hotel room or vacation residence), or other structure (e.g., a garage or shed). Includes only crimes where the offender did not commit or attempt a theft. Does not include trespassing on land.

[294] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 91–92 (of PDF):

The Part II offenses, for which only arrest data are collected, are: …

Arson―Any willful or malicious burning or attempt to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another, etc. …

Stolen property: buying, receiving, possessing―Buying, receiving, possessing, selling, concealing, or transporting any property with the knowledge that it has been unlawfully taken, as by burglary, embezzlement, fraud, larceny, robbery, etc. Attempts are included. …

Vandalism―To willfully or maliciously destroy, injure, disfigure, or deface any public or private property, real or personal, without the consent of the owner or person having custody or control by cutting, tearing, breaking, marking, painting, drawing, covering with filth, or any other such means as may be specified by local law. Attempts are included.

[295] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 39:

Second, the two programs measure an overlapping but nonidentical set of crimes. The NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] includes, but the UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] Program’s SRS [Summary Reporting System] excludes, sexual assault (completed, attempted, and threatened), attempted robberies, verbal threats of rape, simple assault, and crimes not reported to law enforcement.

[296] Report: “The Nation’s Two Measures of Homicide.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2014. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 1:

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) are part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. …

Page 3:

SHRReporting is Voluntary …

SHRData collection methods … In most states, reports from individual law enforcement agencies are compiled monthly by state-level agencies and then forwarded to the FBI …

[297] Webpage: “NIBRS Estimation.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed January 1, 2025 at <bit.ly>

The UCR [Uniform Crime Report] Program has estimated crime statistics for the nation, its regions, and for states since the 1960s. Estimation is the statistical process which allows inferences to be made about an outcome of interest (e.g., the number of robberies in the United States) in a population, even if information about the outcome is only known for part of that population. With the UCR Program collecting crime data only through NIBRS [National Incident-Based Reporting System], estimates for the referenced geographic areas will—for the first time this year—be exclusively based on NIBRS data submitted for 2021. In addition, with the detailed NIBRS data, other inferences about crime will be available, e.g., age, sex, and race about victims and persons arrested, as well as more estimates for more offenses.

With careful planning and execution by the FBI, in conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a NIBRS Estimation Process was created in anticipation of the move to NIBRS. Historically, estimates were based on data contributed annually by law enforcement agencies that covered 90% or more of the U.S. population. With such a high coverage rate, estimation was a more straightforward process. Initially, as agencies continue to transition to the more comprehensive NIBRS collection method, the program will experience a period of lower participation (for 2021, 65% of population covered). The more robust and complex estimation process to account for unreported data will bridge this gap.

This year, you will notice more information about estimation as the UCR Program assures our users understand our NIBRS estimation process. One example: estimates from NIBRS will have confidence intervals (the mean of an estimate plus or minus the variation possible in that estimate) for the first time. However, estimates found to have a level of statistical uncertainty beyond established standards will not be published by the UCR Program.

[298] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 43 (of PDF):

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program provides a nationwide view of crime based on data submissions reported by law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The data submitted to various distinct collections, within the FBI’s UCR Program, detail criminal incidents as well as law enforcement data. For decades, several of these compilations have been published annually. Though each collection presents details of crime or law enforcement data based on data provided by participating agencies, the reports vary in context, participation, and publication criteria.

Crime in the Nation, 2023, includes data received from 16,334 law enforcement agencies that provided data through either the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) or the Summary Reporting System (SRS). These agencies represent 85.2 percent of agencies actively enrolled in the FBI’s UCR Program and cover a combined population of 315,761,680 (94.3 percent) inhabitants. Notably, every city agency covering a population of 1,000,000 or more inhabitants contributed a full 12 months of data to the FBI’s UCR Program in 2023.

[299] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 3–4 (of PDF):

Caution to users

Data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data in this publication and those in prior issues of Crime in the United States. Because of differing levels of participation from year to year and reporting problems that require the FBI to estimate crime counts for certain contributors, some data may not be comparable from year to year. In addition, this publication may contain updates to data provided in prior years’ publications.

Page 40 (of PDF):

By understanding the strengths and limitations of each program, it is possible to use UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] and NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] to achieve a greater understanding of crime trends and the nature of crime in the United States. For example, changes in police procedures, shifting attitudes toward crime and police, and other societal changes can affect the extent to which people report and law enforcement agencies record crime. NCVS and UCR data can be used in complementary ways to explore why trends in reported and police-recorded crime may differ.

[300] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 99:

Table 1. Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants …

2023 …

Population [=] 334,914,895

Property crime [=] 6,419,149

CALCULATION: 334,914,895 people / 6,419,149 property crimes = 52

[301] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 99:

Table 1. Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants …

2023 …

Burglary [=] 839,563

Larceny-theft [=] 4,512,064

Motor vehicle theft [=] 1,067,522

[302] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 4:

Table 2. Number and rate of property victimizations, by type of crime …

2023 …

Total [=] 13,637,450

Rate per 1,000 households [=] 102.2

CALCULATIONS:

  • 13,637,450 DOJ-measured property crimes / 6,419,149 FBI-measured property crimes = 2.1
  • 1,000 households / 102.2 property crimes = 10

[303] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Page 4:

Table 1. Number and rate of property victimizations, by type of crime …

2023 …

Burglary [=] 1,202,830

Trespassing [=] 544,140

Motor vehicle theft [=] 808,830

Other theft [=] 11,081,650

[304] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 39:

Fourth, for property crimes (burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft), the two programs calculate crime rates using different bases. The UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] rates for these crimes are per capita (number of crimes per 100,000 persons), whereas the NCVS [DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey] rates for these crimes are per household (number of crimes per 1,000 households).

Because the number of households may not grow at the same rate each year as the total population, trend data for rates of property crimes measured by the two programs may not be comparable. In addition, some differences in the data from the two programs may result from sampling variation in NCVS and from estimating for nonresponse in UCR.

[305] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 548 (of PDF):

Table 12. Crime Trends by Population Group

Total … 2023 … Arson [=] 35,809

Page 638 (of PDF):

Table 29. Estimated Number of Arrests, United States, 2023

Arson [=] 8,958 …

Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing [=] 81,127 …

Vandalism [=] 170,467

[306] Chart constructed with data from:

Dataset: “Estimated Offenses, United States, 1960–2008.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services. Sent from the FBI to Just Facts on June 15, 2010.

Report: “1995 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 13, 1996. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1976–1995.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1996 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 20, 1997. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1977–1996.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1997 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, October 7, 1998. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1978–1997.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1998 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 12, 1999. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1979–1998.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “1999 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 23, 2000. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1980–1999” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2000 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, July 27, 2001. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1981–2000.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2001 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 10, 2002. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1982–2001.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2002 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 8, 2003. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Index of Crime, United States, 1983–2002.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2003 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 4, 2004. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate, 1984–2003.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2004 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, August 2, 2005. <www2.fbi.gov>

“Table 1.—Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1985–2004.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2005 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2006. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986–2005.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2006 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2007. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1987–2006.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2007 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2008. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1988–2007.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2008 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2009. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1989–2008.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2009 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2010. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1990–2009.” <www2.fbi.gov>

Report: “2010 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2011. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1991–2010.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2011 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, September 2012. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1992–2011.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2012 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2013. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1993–2012.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2013 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2014. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1994–2013.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2014 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2015. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1995–2014.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2015 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2016. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1996–2015.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2016 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2017. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1997–2016.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2017 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2018. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1998–2017.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2018 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2019. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1999–2018.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2019 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2020. <ucr.fbi.gov>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1999–2018.” <ucr.fbi.gov>

Report: “2020 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2021. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2001–2020.” <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “The Transition to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS): A Comparison of 2020 and 2021 NIBRS Estimates.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2022. <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “2022 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, Fall 2023. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2003–2022.” <www.justfacts.com>

Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

“Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2004–2023.” <www.justfacts.com>

[307] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 593–595 (of PDF):

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, law enforcement agencies can clear, or “close,” offenses in one of two ways: by arrest or by exceptional means. Although an agency may administratively close a case, that does not necessarily mean that the agency can clear the offense for UCR purposes. To clear an offense within the UCR Program’s guidelines, the reporting agency must adhere to certain criteria, which are outlined in the following text. (Note: The UCR Program does not distinguish between offenses cleared by arrest and those cleared by exceptional means in collecting or publishing data via the traditional Summary Reporting System.)

Cleared by Arrest

In the UCR Program, a law enforcement agency reports that an offense is cleared by arrest, or solved for crime reporting purposes, when three specific conditions have been met. The three conditions are that at least one person has been:

• Arrested.

• Charged with the commission of the offense.

• Turned over to the court for prosecution (whether following arrest, court summons, or police notice).

In its clearance calculations, the UCR Program counts the number of offenses that are cleared, not the number of persons arrested. The arrest of one person may clear several crimes, and the arrest of many persons may clear only one offense. In addition, some clearances that an agency records in a particular calendar year, such as 2022, may pertain to offenses that occurred in previous years.

Cleared by Exceptional Means

In certain situations, elements beyond law enforcement’s control prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender. When this occurs, the agency can clear the offense exceptionally. Law enforcement agencies must meet the following four conditions in order to clear an offense by exceptional means.

The agency must have:

• Identified the offender.

• Gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution.

• Identified the offender’s exact location so that the suspect could be taken into custody immediately.

• Encountered a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that prohibits the agency from arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender.

Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense. In the UCR Program, the recovery of property alone does not clear an offense. …

In the nation in 2023, 41.1 percent of violent crimes and 13.9 percent of property crimes were cleared by arrest or exceptional means. …

Among property crimes, 14.4 percent of burglary offenses, 15.0 percent of larceny-theft offenses, and 8.2 percent of motor vehicle theft offenses were cleared. …

In 2023, 26.9 percent of arson offenses were cleared by arrest or exceptional means.

[308] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2018.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 2021. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases. All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. …

They exclude persons who were released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. This report is based on NCRP data from 44 states…. In 2018, these states were responsible for 97% of all persons released from state prisons nationwide. Annually administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the NCRP obtains individual-level records from state departments of corrections on prisoners entering and leaving prison custody or community supervision. …

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before Initial Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2018

Most serious offense

Percent of total releases

Time served in prisona

Medianb

Mean

All offenses

100%

1.3 yrs.

2.7 yrs.

Violent

29.8%

2.4 yrs.

4.8 yrs.

Murder

1.7

17.5

17.8

Non-negligent manslaughterc

0.4

7

8.2

Negligent manslaughter

0.8

3.7

5.3

Rape

1.5

7.2

9.6

Other sexual assault

3.4

3.6

5

Robbery

7.4

3.2

4.8

Assault

11.6

1.4

2.5

Other violentd

2.3

1.5

3.5

Property

25.7%

13 mos.

21 mos.

Burglary

10.6

17

27

Larceny-theft

6.8

11

17

Motor-vehicle theft

1.5

11

15

Fraude

3.8

11

17

Other propertyf

3

12

20

Drug

24.6%

12 mos.

21 mos.

Possession

8.6

9

13

Trafficking

9.4

17

26

Other drugg

6.6

14

23

Public order

19.2%

13 mos.

21 mos.

Weapons

5.9

15

23

Other public orderh

13.3

12

20

Other/unspecified

0.7%

16 mos.

31 mos.

Number of releases

376,993

~

~

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Initial release does not refer to first-time offenders but to offenders’ first release from a given sentence (whether they are first-time offenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or less; those with missing values for most serious offense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 3,266 deaths in 2018.
~ Not applicable.
a Excludes time served in jail.
b The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers.
c Includes unspecified and other homicides.
d Includes kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, hit and run with injury, and other unknown violent offenses.
e Includes forgery and embezzlement.
f Includes arson, receiving and trafficking of stolen property, destruction of property, trespassing, and other unknown property offenses.
g Includes forging prescriptions, possession of drug paraphernalia, and other unspecified offenses.
h Includes DUIs/DWIs; court offenses; commercialized vice, morals, and decency offenses; liquor law violations; and other public-order offenses.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2018

[309] Report: “Time Served in State Prison, 2016.” By Danielle Kaeble. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2018. <bjs.ojp.gov>

Pages 1–2:

These findings are based on prisoner records from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), which collects records on prison admissions and releases.

All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ first release after serving time for a given offense. They exclude persons who had been released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision, and then were released again. …

Ninety-six percent of violent offenders released in 2016, including 70% of those sentenced for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, served less than 20 years before initial release from state prison. …

By offense type, the median time served was 13.4 years for murder, 2.2 years for violent crimes excluding murder….

Table 1: Time Served in State Prison Before First Release, by Most Serious Offense, 2016

Most Serious Offense

Time Served in Prisona

Medianb [Years]

Violent

2.4

Murderc

13.4

Note: … First release does not refer to first-time offenders but to offenders’ first release from a given sentence (whether they are first-time offenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or less; those with missing values for most serious offense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 2,755 deaths in 2016. …

a Excludes time served in jail.
b The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers.
c Includes non-negligent manslaughter. …

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2016.

[310] Report: “The Measurement of White-Collar Crime Using Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Data.” By Cynthia Barnett. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, June 17, 2002. <ucr.fbi.gov>

Page 1:

Currently, the definition of white-collar crime is still hotly contested within the community of experts. Although there is a multitude of variations, there appears to be three major orientations: those that define white-collar crime by the type of offender (e.g., high socioeconomic status and/or occupation of trust); those that define it in terms of the type of offense (e.g., economic crime); and those that study it in terms of the organizational culture rather than the offender or offense. Additionally, there are also those that confine the definition mainly to economic crime, as well as others that include other corporate crimes like environmental law violations and health and safety law violations.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has opted to approach white-collar crime in terms of the offense. The Bureau has defined white-collar crime as “… those illegal acts which are characterized by deceit, concealment, or violation of trust and which are not dependent upon the application or threat of physical force or violence. Individuals and organizations commit these acts to obtain money, property, or services; to avoid the payment or loss of money or services; or to secure personal or business advantage.” (USDOJ, 1989, p. 3.) Some experts have criticized defining white-collar crime in terms of type of offense because this definition emphasizes the nature of the acts rather than the background of the offender. Within the FBI definition, there is no mention of the type of occupation or the socioeconomic position of the “white-collar” offender.

Although it is acceptable to use socioeconomic characteristics of the offender to define white-collar crime, it is impossible to measure white-collar crime with UCR data if the working definition revolves around the type of offender. There are no socioeconomic or occupational indicators of the offender in the data. Additionally, there are no measures of corporate structure in UCR data elements. Given that, research using UCR data must approach white-collar crime in terms of type of offense.

[311] Report: “Building a Comprehensive White-Collar Violations Data System.” By Sally S. Simpson and Peter Cleary Yeager, March 2015. <www.ojp.gov>

Pages 5–6:

Since its inception the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has collected, analyzed, published, and disseminated information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of justice systems at all levels of government. A notable exception to this comprehensive coverage is the lack of information about white-collar offenses, offenders, and justice system responses, even though the collection of such data was one of the original tasks outlined for the agency.2 Although the United States has long had annual accounting systems for conventional crimes (including data collected and held by BJS) that have underwritten countless research investigations and informed public policy deliberations, the data landscape for white-collar offending is significantly more constrained. There is no systematic accounting of white-collar offenses and available data are substantially limited in scope and content. BJS does hold some case and defendant-level criminal and civil enforcement data3 on “white-collar” crime from which it has issued select reports on Federal Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Scalia, 1999) and white-collar offending at the state- and federal-level (BJS, 1986; Mason, 1987), but the information is not organized in such a way that enforcement actions against individual or organizational defendants can be followed over time or linked across criminal, civil, and regulatory justice systems. Indeed, regulatory enforcement data on organizations are for the most part absent, and details about offenders and victims are sparse. Consequently, it is impossible to track the extent of known white-collar violations in the United States over time, to describe the characteristics of cases and defendants, or to capture the full array of sanctions levied in a particular case or against perpetrators.

The inability of the federal government consistently and accurately to report known instances of white-collar offending has far-reaching consequences for general knowledge, scientific investigation, and evidence-based policy in this important area. “Policies are formed and legislation is passed, often seemingly rationalized by little more than carefully selected anecdotes that seem to support a particular policy when taken in isolation—and that can easily be countered by other anecdotes that are supportive of an opposing point of view” (Dunworth and Rogers, 1996: 499–500). Such an empirically deficient approach toward white-collar crime virtually ensures “combativeness and policy mistakes”.4

2 BJS was created under the Justice Systems Improvement Act of 1979 to “promote the collection and analysis of statistical information concerning crime, juvenile delinquency, and civil disputes.” It was mandated, among other tasks, to collect “information concerning criminal victimization, crimes against the elderly, and white-collar crime” (emphasis added).

3 The civil data have not been explored or used to the same extent as the criminal case processing data.

4 This policy-related observation was made by Dunworth and Rogers after their assessment of data on big business litigation in Federal courts, but it is equally apt for white-collar crime.

[312] Report: “Criminal Victimization, 2023.” By Susannah N. Tapp and Emilie J. Coen. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2024. <bjs.ojp.gov>

NOTE: This report doesn’t mention any white-collar crimes.

[313] Webpage: “Terms & Definitions.” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed January 15, 2025 at <ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov>

NOTE: This webpage doesn’t mention any white-collar crimes.

[314] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Pages 91–92 (of PDF):

The Part II offenses, for which only arrest data are collected, are: …

Forgery and counterfeiting―The altering, copying, or imitating of something, without authority or right, with the intent to deceive or defraud by passing the copy or thing altered or imitated as that which is original or genuine; or the selling, buying, or possession of an altered, copied, or imitated thing with the intent to deceive or defraud. Attempts are included.

Fraud―The intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another person or other entity in reliance upon it to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right. Fraudulent conversion, obtaining of money or property by false pretenses, confidence games, and bad checks, except forgeries and counterfeiting, are included.

Embezzlement―The unlawful misappropriation or misapplication by an offender to his/her own use or purpose of money, property, or some other thing of value entrusted to his/her care, custody, or control.

[315] Report: “The Measurement of White-Collar Crime Using Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Data.” By Cynthia Barnett. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, June 17, 2002. <ucr.fbi.gov>

Page 2:

Under the traditional Summary Reporting System, there is a limited amount of information available on white-collar crime. The white-collar offenses that are measured are fraud, forgery/counterfeiting, embezzlement, and all other offenses. Because white-collar crimes are not Index crimes, the only information available on these offenses is arrest information, which includes age, sex, and race of the arrestee. Additionally, the all other offenses arrest category is very limited in its ability to measure the white-collar offenses included in its counts. This is due to the inability to differentiate the white-collar offenses from the others that also fall in this category. Based upon the most recently published data from the FBI, the arrest rates for the offenses of embezzlement, fraud, and forgery/counterfeiting are much lower than the arrest rates for property crime1 or for total crimes in general. …

In order to assess the utility of using NIBRS [National Incident-Based Reporting System] to measure white-collar crime, a substantial, but not exhaustive, list of white-collar offenses and its classification under NIBRS is provided (see Appendix A). Based upon that analysis, the following UCR offenses could be considered white-collar crime: fraud, bribery, counterfeiting/forgery, embezzlement (all of which are Group A offenses), and bad checks (a Group B offense)2. Fraud is further broken down into five subcategories: false pretenses/swindle/confidence game, credit card/ ATM fraud, impersonation, welfare fraud, and wire fraud2. Additionally, agencies submit arrest counts for many white-collar crimes through the All Other Offenses Group B category. As is the case with the All Other Offenses category in the Summary arrest data, the count within this category will be limited because one will be unable to distinguish the white-collar offenses from other types of offenses.

[316] Report: “The Measurement of White-Collar Crime Using Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Data.” By Cynthia Barnett. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, June 17, 2002. <ucr.fbi.gov>

Page 7:

Criminal Behavior

Academic crime

Adulterated food, drugs, or cosmetics

Anti-trust violations

ATM fraud

Bad checks

Bribery

Check kiting

Combinations in restraint in trade

Computer crime

Confidence game

Contract fraud

Corrupt conduct by juror

Counterfeiting

Defense contract fraud

Ecology law violations

Election law violations

Embezzlement

Employment agency and education-related scams

Environmental law violations

False advertising and misrepresentation of products

False and fraudulent actions on loans, debs, and credits

False pretenses

False report/statement

Forgery

Fraudulent checks

Health and safety laws

Health care providers fraud

Home improvement frauds

Impersonation

Influence peddling

Insider trading

Insufficient funds checks

Insurance fraud

Investment scams

Jury tampering

Kickback

Land sale frauds

Mail fraud

Managerial fraud

Misappropriation

Monopoly in restraint in trade

Ponzi schemes

Procurement fraud

Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)

Religious fraud

Sports bribery

Strategic bankruptcy

Subornation of perjury

Swindle

Tax law violations

Telemarketing or boiler room scams)

Telephone fraud

Travel scams

Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle

Uttering

Uttering bad checks

Welfare fraud

Wire fraud

Page 10:

GLOSSARY

Bribery

The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any thing of value (i.e., a bribe, gratuity, or kickback) to sway the judgment or action of a person in a position of trust or influence.

Counterfeiting/Forgery

The altering, copying, or imitation of something, without authority or right, with the intent to deceive or defraud by passing the copy of thing altered or imitated as that which is original or genuine; or the selling, buying, or possession of an altered, copied, or imitated thing with the intent to deceive or defraud.

Embezzlement The unlawful misappropriation by an offender to his/her own use or purpose of money, property, or some other thing of value entrusted to his/her care, custody, or control.

Fraud Offenses The intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another person or other entity in reliance upon it to part with some thing of value or to surrender a legal right.

False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game

The intentional misrepresentation of existing fact or condition, or the use of some other deceptive scheme or device, to obtain money, goods, or other things of value.

Credit Card/ATM Fraud

The unlawful use of a credit (or debit) card or automatic teller machine for fraudulent purposes.

Impersonation

Falsely representing one’s identity or position, and acting in the character or position thus unlawfully assumed, to deceive others and thereby gain a profit or advantage, enjoy some right or privilege, or subject another person or entity to an expense, charge, or liability which would not have otherwise been incurred.

Welfare Fraud

The use of deceitful statements, practices, or devices to unlawfully obtain welfare benefits.

Wire Fraud

The use of an electric or electronic communications facility to intentionally transmit a false and/or deceptive message in furtherance of a fraudulent activity.

[317] Webpage: “White-Collar Crime.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed January 25, 2025 at <www.fbi.gov>

These crimes are not violent, but they are not victimless. White-collar crimes can destroy a company, wipe out a person’s life savings, cost investors billions of dollars, and erode the public’s trust in institutions.

Examples of White-Collar Crime

Health care fraud can be committed by medical providers, patients, and others who intentionally deceive the health care system to receive unlawful benefits or payments. …

As the lead agency investigating corporate fraud, the FBI focuses its efforts on cases that involve accounting schemes and self-dealing by corporate executives, as well as obstruction of justice (activities designed to conceal this type of criminal conduct). …

Insider trading (stock trading based on material, non-public information) …

Money laundering is turning “dirty” money “clean” by making it look like money from crimes actually came from legitimate sources. …

Securities and Commodities Fraud

The creation of complex investment vehicles and the tremendous increase in the amount of money being invested have created greater opportunities for individuals and businesses to create fraudulent investment schemes. …

Intellectual property theft involves robbing people or companies of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressions—known as intellectual property. This can include everything from trade secrets to proprietary products to movies, music, and software.

[318] The Oxford Handbook of White-Collar Crime (1st edition). Edited by Shanna R. Van Slyke, Michael L. Benson, and Francis T. Cullen. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Chapter 5: “The Costs of White-Collar Crime.” By Mark A. Cohen.

Perhaps one of the largest white-collar crimes is occupational theft and employee fraud. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE 2012) estimated that the average business loses about 5 percent of total revenue to employee frauds such as theft of cash receipts or inventory, false invoices, and other forms of skimming. This translates into about $3.5 trillion worldwide or $800 billion in the United States in 2012. It is important to note, however, that the ACFE study is not a representative sample of companies; it is based on the subjective assessment of the fraud problem as reported by certified auditors.

The Internal Revenue Service (2012) estimates the “tax gap” to be $450 billion in underpaid taxes in 2006—with $385 billion expected to be uncollected after $65 billion in late payments and penalties are paid. Some of this amount no doubt overlaps with the reported crime costs elsewhere in this chapter, although it is impossible to know how much overlap exists.

[319] Paper: “The Aggregate Cost of Crime in the United States.” By David A. Anderson. Journal of Law and Economics, November 2021. <www.journals.uchicago.edu>

Malicious Cyber Activity. The Council of Economic Advisors (Executive Office of the President 2018) estimates that data breaches cost $61.3 billion annually and that the total cost of adverse cyber events, including distributed denial-of-service attacks, ransomware attacks, and destructive malware attacks, is $116.6 billion annually. These estimates are based on the likelihood of attacks, firms’ loss of market value due to attacks, and the estimated spillover effects on associated firms. The attacks necessitate expenditures on, for example, credit monitoring for affected customers, security upgrades, added staff to handle the repercussions, investigations, and legal fees (Executive Office of the President 2018, p. 23).

[320] Report: “The 2010 National Public Survey on White Collar Crime.” By Rodney Huff, Christian Desilets, and John Kane. National White Collar Crime Center, December 2010. <www.ojp.gov>

Page 15: “Respondents reported that within the previous 12 months, their households were affected most often by credit card fraud, price misrepresentation, and unnecessary repairs.”

[321] The Oxford Handbook of White-Collar Crime (1st edition). Edited by Shanna R. Van Slyke, Michael L. Benson, and Francis T. Cullen. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Chapter 4: “What Is Known and What Should Be Known About White-Collar Crime Victimization?” By Hazel Croall.

The statistics reported by law-enforcement agencies, often cited by researchers, also are limited as so few offenses are reported to law enforcement. Even when victims are aware of some harm, they may not know whom to complain to; in other circumstances, the embarrassment that so often accompanies victimization from fraud also inhibits reporting (Button et al. 2009). … Only a small proportion of offenses is prosecuted, making conviction figures unreliable. There is no one major source of information, and collating the records of many agencies, accounting for variations in recording, deducing how many “complaints” or “incidents” might be seen as “crime” versus those due to managerial neglect or incompetence, carelessness, misuse, or ignoring instructions on the part of consumers or workers, or simply, an “accident,” is, in itself, a major task.

Chapter 5: “The Costs of White-Collar Crime.” By Mark A. Cohen.

The costs of white-collar crime are notoriously difficult to quantify because victims often do not know they have been subject to a criminal offense. While a victim of robbery or assault is generally aware of his or her victimization and may report it to police or respond to a victimization survey, the company whose product has been counterfeited and the consumer who buys the fake product might have no idea they were victimized. Victims of price-fixing or bid-rigging conspiracies might have no idea they are paying higher prices due to these criminal activities. In some cases, elderly victims of fraud might not realize (or deny) they have been victimized—especially if they suffer from dementia (Templeton and Kirkman 2007).

[322] Report: “The Measurement of White-Collar Crime Using Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Data.” By Cynthia Barnett. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, June 17, 2002. <ucr.fbi.gov>

Page 6:

There is no way currently to distinguish among all of these different types of crimes, and only the “Arrestee Segment” data elements are collected on these crimes. Legally, the idea of holding the corporation criminally liable is not a universally supported idea. There is some case law to support the concept of a “juristic person” when considering criminal behavior perpetrated by the corporation, but other white-collar crime experts are adamant that “corporations do not kill people, people kill people.” Ultimately, a person will be held responsible for the actions of the corporation. If an agent of the corporation committed an offense while in the course of his/her duties and for the benefit of the corporation, the principal can be held liable and convicted of a criminal offense, not the corporation itself.

Additional limitations to NIBRS statistics involve problems with reporting that are already well documented in the traditional Summary Reporting System. These limitations include both victims reporting crimes to law enforcement and law enforcement reporting crimes to the UCR [FBI Uniform Crime Report] Program. Many victims are unaware that they have been deceived or are too ashamed to report the offense. Further, corporations tend not to report white-collar crime perpetrated against themselves because it may negatively affect the reputation of the company. Also, NIBRS is a voluntary program; consequently, agencies do not have to submit statistics to the UCR Program in either summary or incident-based form and typically do not receive funding to help them do so. The voluntary nature of the UCR Program leads to an underreporting that can distort the actual picture of the problem of white-collar crime.

Conclusion

The true extent and expense of white-collar crime are unknown. Summary-based UCR statistics can provide only a limited amount of information on a limited number of offenses. With increased agency participation in NIBRS, however, the FBI will be better able to measure newer concerns in law enforcement, including white-collar crime. The data already have begun to reveal information about crime and criminality, including white-collar crime, that has been previously unknown.

[323] Report: “2023 Crime in the United States.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2024. <www.justfacts.com>

Page 638 (of PDF):

Table 29. Estimated Number of Arrests, United States, 2023

Forgery and counterfeiting [=] 35,995 …

Fraud [=] 80,020 …

Embezzlement [=] 9,976 …

[324] Report: “The 2010 National Public Survey on White Collar Crime.” By Rodney Huff, Christian Desilets, and John Kane. National White Collar Crime Center, December 2010. <www.ojp.gov>

Page 8:

The survey was administered from June to August, 2010 and employed random digit dialing techniques to provide a national sample. Landline and cell phone interviews of 2,503 adult participants were conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents were asked about experiences within their households concerning white collar crime within the past 12 months (see Appendix B for survey instrument), as well as about personal encounters with these crimes within the past 12 months. The experiences measured were mortgage fraud, credit card fraud, identity theft, unnecessary home or auto repairs, price misrepresentation, and losses occurring due to false stockbroker information, fraudulent business ventures, and Internet scams. The study found that:

• 24% of households and 17% of individuals reported experiencing at least one form of these victimizations within the previous year

• Respondents reported victimization at both household and individual levels most often as a result of credit card fraud, price misrepresentation, and unnecessary object repairs

• In conjunction with direct victimization questions, respondents were asked whether or not the victimization was reported to law enforcement or other entities that might be able to assist the victim. Of the household victimizations:

• 54.7% were reported to at least one external recipient or agency (e.g., credit card company, business or person involved, law enforcement, consumer protection agency, personal attorney, etc.)

• Only 11.7% were reported to law enforcement or some other crime control agency

Pages 14–15:

Respondents were asked whether someone within their household had been victimized by white collar crime within the past 12 months. Approximately 24% of the respondents indicated that someone experienced at least one type of victimization. Of those households reporting victimization, an average of 1.4 instances occurred. Figure 1 reflects crime trend information for those individuals reporting household victimization. …

Respondents reported that within the previous 12 months, their households were affected most often by credit card fraud, price misrepresentation, and unnecessary repairs.

In conjunction with direct victimization questions, respondents were also asked whether or not the victimizations were reported to either a crime control agency or another entity able to provide recourse, such as credit card companies or personal lawyers. Of the household victimizations (n=846), 54.7% were reported to at least one entity.

Figure 2 illustrates the reporting behavior patterns of respondents’ households. Of the known household reports,e 30.9% were sent to credit card companies, 18.8% were sent to police, 15.6% were sent to banks, 14.8% were sent to the business or person involved in the incident, 11% were sent to an entity not listed, 5.1% were sent to the Better Business Bureau, 1.3% were sent to a district attorney or state attorney general, 0.8% were sent to a consumer protection agency, 0.6% were sent to a credit bureau, 0.6% were sent to a personal lawyer, and 0.4% were sent to IC3.

Pages 16–17:

Although the survey found that more than half of household victimizations were reported, only 21.4% of household reports reached an entity with criminal investigative or prosecutorial power.

Table 1 shows the number of household victimizations by offense type, the percentage of those victimizations that were reported, and the percentage of reported victimizations that reached a crime control agency. …

To capture the prevalence of white collar crime on a personal level, the survey asked respondents whether they had personally been victimized by the same types of crime within the 12-month timeframe. The survey showed that 16.5% of respondents have been a victim of white collar crime within the past year, with an average of 1.3 victimizations per respondent. Figure 3 represents individual victimization trends.

Pages 21–22:

Limitations of Study

This survey presented respondents with common types of white collar crimes and asked about victimization only for those specific types. Thus, it can be assumed that the actual rate of white collar crime victimization is likely higher than the reported number. There are several types of data that would not be captured under the current approach (or, in some cases, under any approach):

• Undetected behavior

– Respondents can only report on crimes that they are aware of. Example: Fraudulent schemes that are presumed to be legitimate at the time of the survey

• Criminal behavior erroneously perceived to be an exclusively civil matter

– The public sometimes has an inaccurate idea of what sort of behavior may be considered criminal.

Example: Contractors billing for work that was not performed, which gets characterized as a contract dispute instead of fraud

• Known and detected crimes where the respondent is unaware that they are a victim

– Unlike most street crimes, white collar crimes can victimize large, poorly defined categories of people.

Example: An employee who is successfully prosecuted for illegal disposal of waste materials, when many of the citizens who drink from the tainted water sources do not realize that they are victims

• White collar crimes of types that were not asked about

– While respondents’ known victimizations were recorded (See Appendix B for the survey questions), it was not practical to cover all types of white collar crime.

Example: Affinity fraud carried out in a non-online context

• Detected and correctly identified criminal acts in which the respondent realizes they were a victim, but chooses not to speak about the incident

– All surveys that rely on the answers of respondents are dependent on the respondents answering honestly. While the survey was designed to reduce the motivation for giving false answers (for example, by being anonymous and by being administered by a surveying firm with no stake in the results), any respondents who gave false information either hiding true incidents or inventing false ones necessarily made it harder to see the underlying patterns in the data.

Example: A scam victim who feels foolish for having been deceived and is too embarrassed to tell researchers about the incident

The current data provide a valuable snapshot of existing white collar crime victimization, but it should be understood that no survey that attempts to provide a measure of crime can do so with complete accuracy. In light of these observations and the findings of other crime reports,40 results of the present study should be interpreted carefully. While this report captures information on a significant portion of the white collar crime problem, the true rate of victimization is likely to be higher.

[325] The Oxford Handbook of White-Collar Crime (1st edition). Edited by Shanna R. Van Slyke, Michael L. Benson, and Francis T. Cullen. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Chapter 5: “The Costs of White-Collar Crime.” By Mark A. Cohen.

Table 5.3 summarizes the best available and most recent estimates of the costs of white-collar crime in the United States, as well as significant areas where no national cost estimates are available. It only includes the cost of victimization—not society’s response or attempts to prevent victimization. Table 5.3 also identifies when other significant “non-monetary” costs of victimization might need to be added to these estimates; for example, when victimization might involve reduced quality of life. …

… As shown in table 5.3, the monetary cost of occupational theft and employee fraud alone has been estimated to be $800 billion. While there might be some overlap in table 5.3, total victimization costs exceed $1.6 trillion and many costly crimes are not included in these estimates. More importantly, aside from identity theft, none of the costs included in table 5.3 include intangible losses such as the psychological impact of victimization. Thus, it is clear that the costs of victimization from white-collar crime far exceed that of street crime in the United States.

[326] Calculated with data from the footnote above and the dataset: “Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product [Billions of Dollars].” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised January 25, 2024. <apps.bea.gov>

“GDP … 2016 [=] $18,804.9”

CALCULATION: $1.6 trillion white-collar crime victim losses / $18.8 trillion GDP = 8.5%

[327] The Oxford Handbook of White-Collar Crime (1st edition). Edited by Shanna R. Van Slyke, Michael L. Benson, and Francis T. Cullen. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Chapter 5: “The Costs of White-Collar Crime.” By Mark A. Cohen.

• The costs of white-collar crime go well beyond victimization costs. Business, government, and individuals all take costly actions to avoid and prevent becoming victims of white-collar crime. In addition, because many white-collar crimes occur in the context of legitimate business activities and often no mens rea requirement is included in corporate criminal offenses, businesses may take costly actions to avoid becoming charged with a crime. However, little is known about the magnitude of many of these avoidance behaviors.

• In some cases, nonfinancial victimization costs may be a significant consequence of white-collar crime. Costs may include physical or psychological harm to people and the environment in addition to serious harm to public confidence in political and/or economic institutions. However, the evidence on these costs is scant and there are no comprehensive victimization surveys establishing the magnitude of these types of harms. …

The costs of crime can be grouped into three major categories (Brand and Price 2000):

1. Costs incurred in anticipation of crime (e.g., prevention),

2. Costs incurred as a consequence of crime (e.g., victimization), and

3. Costs in response to crime (e.g., criminal justice expenditures). …

Victims of identity theft frequently reported other negative consequences such as being harassed by debt collectors, denied credit cards, utilities cut off, and so forth. Many identity theft victims reportedly suffer psychological harm, including feelings of anxiety, fear, mistrust, and paranoia (Sharp et al. 2004, pp. 132–133). In theory, each of these cost components can be individually estimated and added up to estimate the cost of identity theft. However, all of these “bottom-up” approaches ignore some very important components of the costs of crime—including the “fear of crime,” expenditures or actions taken by the public to avoid the risk of crime, as well as any residual loss to the community such as business development. …

Table 5.3 summarizes the best available and most recent estimates of the costs of white-collar crime in the United States, as well as significant areas where no national cost estimates are available. It only includes the cost of victimization—not society’s response or attempts to prevent victimization. Table 5.3 also identifies when other significant “non-monetary” costs of victimization might need to be added to these estimates; for example, when victimization might involve reduced quality of life.

[328] Calculated with data from the paper: “The Aggregate Cost of Crime in the United States.” By David A. Anderson. Journal of Law and Economics, November 2021. <www.journals.uchicago.edu>

This article offers an estimate of the total annual cost of crime in the United States…. The findings update crime-cost estimates of past decades while expanding the scope of coverage to include categories missing from past studies. …

The cost estimates are based on the most recent data available, except that none of the figures that might be affected by the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic are taken from 2020. The data are primarily from refereed journal articles or US government agencies. Industry sources are considered on the basis of their data collection methods and corroboration from similar studies. When multiple credible estimates exist, the values are averaged. …

4.4. Transfers

The white-collar crimes of fraud and theft involve transfers of money or goods from victims to criminals. … Reporting on transfers can be divergent and overlapping; the estimates below are on the conservative side and do not include overlapping components. …

It should be clear that all counts of crimes and their costs are vulnerable to missing data. The values in the present study should not give the appearance of accuracy. Survey data were used when possible to capture some of the crimes not reported to police, but some estimates are based on reported crimes. Section 4 explains that many of the values are selected to be on the low end of available estimates. For these reasons, the findings in the present study are most likely conservative estimates of the total cost of crime.

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[329] Calculated with data from the footnote above and the dataset: “Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product [Billions of Dollars].” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised January 25, 2024. <apps.bea.gov>

Dataset: “Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product [Billions of Dollars].” United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised January 25, 2024. <apps.bea.gov>

“GDP … 2021 [=] $23,681.2”

CALCULATION: $1.9 trillion white-collar crime victim losses / $23.7 trillion GDP = 8.0%

[330] Calculated with data from the paper: “The Aggregate Cost of Crime in the United States.” By David A. Anderson. Journal of Law and Economics, November 2021. <www.journals.uchicago.edu>

4.4. Transfers

The white-collar crimes of fraud and theft involve transfers of money or goods from victims to criminals. … Reporting on transfers can be divergent and overlapping; the estimates below are on the conservative side and do not include overlapping components.

Occupational Fraud. Occupational fraud occurs when employees misappropriate their employers’ assets for personal gain. Such fraud can involve embezzlement, false statements, bribery, and corruption. … The median estimate of the percentage of annual revenues lost to occupational fraud among examiners of fraud in the United States is 5 percent.7 Applied to the 2019 US GDP of $21.61 trillion, this provides an estimate of $1.08 trillion in transfers due to occupational fraud.

Internet Fraud. The FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (US Department of Justice 2019c) reports $4.0 billion worth of Internet fraud. …

Insurance Fraud. … Guided by the intersection of these estimates at the conservative end of the range, the present study applies $110.9 billion as the estimate of health care fraud. The FBI estimates a $44.9 billion annual cost of insurance fraud other than health insurance fraud.9

Identity Fraud. … Once a minor issue centered around counterfeit credit cards, identity fraud has expanded to include takeovers of entire bank and investment accounts with a total estimated cost of $17.0 billion annually (Tedder and Buzzard 2020).

Retail Theft, Vender Fraud, and Return Fraud. … Vendor fraud and error account for an additional 5.4 percent, or $3.4 billion, of the shrinkage. … Retailers lose an additional $27.2 billion to return fraud, such as returns of stolen merchandise (Appriss Retail 2019).

Telephone, Mail, and Coupon Fraud. … The Federal Trade Commission (2020) reports $497 million in losses from 821,862 cases of telephone fraud and $51 million in losses from 31,928 cases of mail fraud. Forter (2020) finds that coupon fraud is a large and growing problem with a $300–$600 million estimated annual cost. The midpoint of that range, $450 million, is used in the present study.

Unpaid Taxes. Internal Revenue Service Research (2019) estimates a voluntary tax compliance rate of 83.6 percent and that 85.8 percent of taxes are ultimately paid after accounting for late payments and postaudit collections. The sources of noncompliance include underreported income, excessive deductions, failure to file a return, and failure to pay the full amount due. The Congressional Budget Office (2019) reports fiscal year 2019 tax revenues of $3.49 trillion, which is 85.8 percent of $4.07 trillion. The estimated federal tax gap is thus $578 billion. …

It should be clear that all counts of crimes and their costs are vulnerable to missing data. The values in the present study should not give the appearance of accuracy. Survey data were used when possible to capture some of the crimes not reported to police, but some estimates are based on reported crimes. Section 4 explains that many of the values are selected to be on the low end of available estimates. For these reasons, the findings in the present study are most likely conservative estimates of the total cost of crime.

[331] Report: “Making Tax Compliance Easier and Collecting What’s Due.” By Nina E. Olson. IRS, Taxpayer Advocate Service, June 28, 2011. <www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov>

Page 2:

According to the IRS’s most recent comprehensive estimate, the net tax gap stood at $290 billion in 2001,2 when 132 million tax returns were filed.3 This means that each taxpayer was effectively paying a ‘surtax’ of some $2,200 to subsidize noncompliance by others. For this reason, it is important to reduce the tax gap.

[332] Paper: “The Aggregate Cost of Crime in the United States.” By David A. Anderson. Journal of Law and Economics, November 2021. <www.journals.uchicago.edu>

This article offers an estimate of the total annual cost of crime in the United States, including the direct costs of law enforcement, criminal justice, and victims’ losses and the indirect costs of private deterrence, fear and agony, and time lost to avoidance and recovery. The findings update crime-cost estimates of past decades while expanding the scope of coverage to include categories missing from past studies.

NOTE: The figures above only include “transfers of money or goods from victims to criminals” and not the other categories of crime costs quantified in the study. This is because the study doesn’t break down the other categories of costs for white-collar crimes.

[333] Book: Introductory Econometrics: Using Monte Carlo Simulation with Microsoft Excel. By Humberto Barreto and Frank M. Howland. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Page 43:

Association Is Not Causation

A second problem with the correlation coefficient involves its interpretation. A high correlation coefficient means that two variables are highly associated, but association is not the same as causation.

This issue is a persistent problem in empirical analysis in the social sciences. Often the investigator will plot two variables and use the tight relationship obtained to draw absolutely ridiculous or completely erroneous conclusions. Because we so often confuse association and causation, it is extremely easy to be convinced that a tight relationship between two variables means that one is causing the other. This is simply not true.

[334] Webpage: “About the EPPI-Center.” EPPI-Centre, University of London. Accessed May 31, 2017 at <eppi.ioe.ac.uk>

About the EPPI-Centre

The EPPI [Evidence for Policy and Practice Information]-Centre is a specialist centre for: (i) developing methods for systematic reviewing and synthesis of research evidence; and (ii) developing methods for the study of the use research.

We have very close links with the main international collaborations in synthesis methods and we are partners or undertake other work with many of the UK government what works centres. We are interested in complexity and mixed methods reviews to understand research relevant to decision making as well as methods for how that research is used in practice. We see research as both a crucially important form of academic enquiry and as an important resource for use in society.

As well as being directly involved in research synthesis and research use, we provide two MSc [Master of Science] programmes and many short courses in research synthesis and social policy and research. We also produce many publications on research synthesis and research use.

Our work in research synthesis and research use is across many areas of social policy including education, health, social care, developing economies, sport, environment, and crime.

The EPPI-Centre is based in the Social Science Research Unit in the Department of Social Science, UCL Institute of Education, University College London. The work of the centre started in 1993, the name “EPI-Centre” was used from 1995 and we then changed to the current name of “EPPI-Centre” from 2001.

[335] Report: “Evidence on the Economic Growth Impacts of Corruption in Low-Income Countries and Beyond: A Systematic Review.” By Mehmet Ugur and Nandini Dasgupta. EPPI-Centre, University of London, August 2011. <eppi.ioe.ac.uk>

Page 1: “After critical evaluation, the total number of studies included for narrative synthesis and meta-analysis was 115.”

Page 7:

The direct effect of corruption on per capita GDP [gross domestic product] growth in LICs [Low Income Countries] is statistically significant and negative (–0.07 percentage point), but low. The indirect effects through the public finance and human capital channels are higher (−0.23 and −0.29 percentage points, respectively). Hence, the total effect that satisfies the precision-effect test is −0.59 percentage point. This should be interpreted as follows: a one-unit increase in the perceived corruption index of a low-income country can be expected to lead to a fall of 0.59 percentage point in the growth rate of its per capita GDP. The corresponding effect in “mixed” countries (including LICs and more developed countries) is −0.86 percentage point.

Page 8: “Corruption has a negative and statistically significant effect on per capita GDP growth in LICs and non-LICs, but its effect in non-LICs is higher. Therefore, corruption should be considered as an international problem with varying degrees of adverse economic consequences rather than as a problem confined to low income countries.”

Page 81:

Focusing on per capita GDP growth, we can put the synthesised evidence into perspective as follows: suppose a hypothetical LIC had a per capita GDP of $500 in 1995 and has achieved an average of 3 percent growth from 1995 to 2010 (16 years). If the corruption level had remained the same in this hypothetical country, its per capita GDP would have been $802 in 2010. However, if this country had reduced the corruption level by one unit in 1995 and if it had kept the level of corruption constant in the following years, its per capita GDP would have been $879 in 2010. In other words, per capita GDP in this hypothetical country would have been 10 percent higher than the baseline figure if corruption had been reduced by one unit in 1995 and kept constant thereafter.

Page 88: “Subject to limitations associated with the meta-analysis of observational study estimates, the evidence synthesised in this review indicates that corruption has negative and statistically significant effects on growth—directly and indirectly, and in both LICs and non-LICs.”

[336] Textbook: Microeconomics for Today (9th edition). By Irvin B. Tucker. South-Western Cengage Learning, 2016.

Page 473: “GDP [gross domestic product] per capita provides a general index of a country’s standard of living. Countries with low GDP per capita and slow growth in GDP per capita are less able to satisfy basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, and health.”

[337] Chart constructed with data from:

a) Dataset: “Corruption Perceptions Index 2021: Global Scores.” Transparency International, October 12, 2022. <images.transparencycdn.org>

Tab: “CPI 2021”

b) Dataset: “GDP Per Capita, PPP (Current International $).” World Bank, December 22, 2022. <data.worldbank.org>

NOTES:

  • See the forthcoming footnotes for information about the Transparency International index.
  • An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[338] “Corruption Perceptions Index Frequently Asked Questions.” Transparency International, January 24, 2022. <images.transparencycdn.org>

Page 1:

What is the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)?

The CPI scores and ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be by experts and business executives. It is a composite index, a combination of 13 surveys and assessments of corruption, collected by a variety of reputable institutions. The CPI is the most widely used indicator of corruption worldwide.

Which data sources are used for the CPI?

The CPI draws on 13 data sources from 12 independent institutions specialising in governance and business climate analysis. The sources of information used for the CPI are based on data published in the previous two years. The CPI includes only sources that provide a score for a set of countries/territories and that measure expert perceptions of corruption in the public sector.

[339] “Corruption Perceptions Index 2021: Short Methodology Note.” Transparency International, January 24, 2022. <images.transparencycdn.org>

Page 1: “The CPI [Corruption Perceptions Index] 2021 is calculated using 13 different data sources from 12 different institutions that capture perceptions of corruption within the past two years. These sources are described in detail in the accompanying source description document.”

[340] “Corruption Perceptions Index 2021: Technical Methodology Note.” Transparency International, January 24, 2022. <images.transparencycdn.org>

Page 2:

Each of the data sources used to calculate the CPI [Corruption Perceptions Index] is evaluated against the following criteria:

A) Methodological reliability and institutional reputation.…

B) Conceptual alignment of the data.…

C) Quantitative granularity.…

D) Cross country comparability.…

E) Multi year data availability.…

In order to carry out this quality assurance process, Transparency International reaches out to each one of the institutions providing data in order to verify the methodology used to generate their scores. Since some of the sources are not publicly available, Transparency International also requests permission to publish the rescaled scores from each source alongside the composite CPI score. Transparency International is, however, not permitted to share the original scores given by private sources with the general public.

[341] Article: “Continental Congress.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

(1774–89), in the period of the American Revolution, the body of delegates who spoke and acted collectively for the people of the colony-states that later became the United States of America. The term most specifically refers to the bodies that met in 1774 and 1775–81 and respectively designated as the First Continental Congress and the Second Continental Congress.

In the spring of 1774, the British Parliament’s passage of the Intolerable (Coercive) Acts, including the closing of the port of Boston, provoked keen resentment in the colonies. The First Continental Congress, convened in response to the Acts by the colonial Committees of Correspondence, met in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774. Fifty-six deputies represented all the colonies except Georgia. …

… Meeting in secret session, the body rejected a plan for reconciling British authority with colonial freedom. Instead, it adopted a declaration of personal rights, including life, liberty, property, assembly, and trial by jury. The declaration also denounced taxation without representation and the maintenance of the British army in the colonies without their consent. Parliamentary regulation of American commerce, however, was willingly accepted. …

Before that Second Continental Congress assembled in the Pennsylvania State House, hostilities had already broken out between Americans and British troops at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts.

[342] Ruling: Gulf v. Ellis. U.S. Supreme Court, January 18, 1897. Decided 5–3. <caselaw.findlaw.com>

The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.

[343] Declaration of Independence. Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776. <www.archives.gov>

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. …

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[344] Book: The Bill of Rights and the States: The Colonial and Revolutionary Origins of American Liberties. Edited by Patrick T. Conley & John P. Kaminski. Madison House Publishers, 1992. Pages 461–514: “The Bill of Rights: A Bibliographic Essay.” By Gaspare J. Saladino.

Page 484:

The best historical treatments of the legislative history of the Bill of Rights in the first federal Congress are in the general accounts by Rutland, Dumbauld, Brant, Schwartz, and Levy, and in David M. Matteson, The Organization of the Government under the Constitution (1941; reprint ed., New York, 1970). All agree that James Madison, against considerable odds, took the lead in the House of Representatives, and that without his efforts there probably would have been no Bill of Rights. Madison’s amendments, a distillation of those from the state conventions (especially Virginia’s) were, for the most part, those that the House eventually adopted.

[345] Article: “Madison, James.” Contributor: Robert J. Brugger (Ph.D., Editor, Maryland Historical Magazine, Maryland Historical Society). World Book Encyclopedia, 2007 Deluxe Edition.

[O]ften called the Father of the Constitution. He played a leading role in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where he helped design the checks and balances that operate among Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court. He also helped create the U.S. federal system, which divides power between the central government and the states.

[346] Book: The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, Which Framed the Constitution of the United States of America, Reported by James Madison, a Delegate From the State of Virginia. Edited by Gaillard Hund and James Brown Scott. Oxford University Press, 1920. <avalon.law.yale.edu>

June 6, 1787:

Mr. [James] Madison … differed from the member from Connecticut [Mr. Sherman] in thinking the objects mentioned to be all the principal ones that required a National Govt. Those were certainly important and necessary objects; but he combined with them the necessity of providing more effectually for the security of private rights, and the steady dispensation of Justice. Interferences with these were evils which had more perhaps than any thing else, produced this convention.

[347] The Federalist Papers. By Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. October 27, 1787–May 28, 1788. <www.gutenberg.org>

Federalist Paper 10. By James Madison, November 22, 1787 (<founders.archives.gov>):

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.

[348] Ruling: City of Chicago v. Sturges. U.S. Supreme Court, December 18, 1911. Decided 9–0. <caselaw.findlaw.com>

Mr. Justice Lurton delivered the opinion of the court:

The only question under this writ of error is as to the validity of a statute of the state of Illinois entitled, “An Act to Indemnify the Owner of Property for Damages by Mobs and Riots.” …

The defendant in error recovered a judgment against the city under that statute, which was affirmed in the supreme court of the state. … The validity of the law under the Illinois Constitution was thus affirmed, and that question is thereby foreclosed. But it was urged in the Illinois courts that the act violated the guaranty of due process of law and the equal protection of the law, as provided by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. …

Primarily, governments exist for the maintenance of social order. Hence it is that the obligation of the government to protect life, liberty, and property against the conduct of the indifferent, the careless, and the evil-minded may be regarded as lying at the very foundation of the social compact. A recognition of this supreme obligation is found in those exertions of the legislative power which have as an end the preservation of social order and the protection of the welfare of the public and of the individual. If such legislation be reasonably adapted to the end in view, affords a hearing before judgment, and is not forbidden by some other affirmative provision of constitutional law, it is not to be regarded as denying due process of law under the provisions of the 14th Amendment.

The law in question is a valid exercise of the police power of the state of Illinois. It rests upon the duty of the state to protect its citizens in the enjoyment and possession of their acquisitions, and is but a recognition of the obligation of the state to preserve social order and the property of the citizen against the violence of a riot or a mob. … The state is the creator of subordinate municipal governments. It vests in them the police powers essential to the preservation of law and order. It imposes upon them the duty of protecting property situated within their limits from the violence of such public breaches of the peace as are mobs and riots. This duty and obligation thus intrusted to the local subordinate government is by this enactment emphasized and enforced by imposing upon the local community absolute liability for property losses resulting from the violence of such public tumults.

The policy of imposing liability upon a civil subdivision of government exercising delegated police power is familiar to every student of the common law. We find it recognized in the beginning of the police system of Anglo-Saxon people. Thus, “The Hundred,” a very early form of civil subdivision, was held answerable for robberies committed within the division. By a series of statutes, beginning possibly in 1285, in the statutes of Westminster, coming on down to the 27th Elizabeth, the riot act of George I. and act of George II. … we may find a continuous recognition of the principle that a civil subdivision intrusted with the duty of protecting property in its midst, and with police power to discharge the function, may be made answerable not only for negligence affirmatively shown, but absolutely as not having afforded a protection adequate to the obligation. Statutes of a similar character have been enacted by several of the states and held valid exertions of the police power. … The imposition of absolute liability upon the community when property is destroyed through the violence of a mob is not, therefore, an unusual police regulation. Neither is it arbitrary, as not resting upon reasonable grounds of policy. Such a regulation has a tendency to deter the … lawless, since the sufferer must be compensated by a tax burden which will fall upon all property, including that of the evil doers as members of the community. It is likewise calculated to stimulate the exertions of the indifferent and the lawabiding to avoid the falling of a burden which they must share with the lawless. In that it directly operates on and affects public opinion, it tends strongly to the upholding of the empire of the law. …

Judgment affirmed.

[349] Paper: “Prohibition of Lawful Assembly When Opposed By Threat of Violence.” Indiana Law Journal, Fall 1948. Pages 79–89. <www.repository.law.indiana.edu>

Page 81:

Yet public policy favors the rule that men need not give up their lawful rights simply because the lawless insist on attacking them. Traditionally, officials must enforce the law the lawful way, not the easiest way. The consequences which logically follow prohibiting freedom of rightful action or expression to A because B threatens violence are so self-evident that they need not be labored.10

10 If the reader thinks they should be labored, let him look to the following: “If a permit can constitutionally be refused on the grounds relied on by the defendants, a small number of lawless men by passing the word around that they intend to start a riot could prevent any kind of meeting, not only of radicals or Socialists or trade unionists, but also of Negroes, of Jews, of Catholics, of Protestants, of supporters of German refugees, of Republicans in a Democratic community or vice versa. Indeed, on any such theory, a gathering which expressed the sentiment of a majority of law-abiding citizens would be forbidden merely because a small gang of hoodlums threatened to break up the meeting. The only proper remedy for such a situation, small or serious, is the police protection to which citizens are entitled, whether they are singly or in groups.” Brief for the Special Committee on the Bill of Rights of the American Bar Association, as Amicus Curiae, p. 19, Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U. S. 496 (1939).

[350] Paper: “Prohibition of Lawful Assembly When Opposed By Threat of Violence.” Indiana Law Journal, Fall 1948. Pages 79–89. <www.repository.law.indiana.edu>

Page 81:

Such a situation as that envisioned in this quotation is not as fantastic as it sounds, when we recall that the successful tactics of Fascists, Nazis, and Communists have included the use of organized thuggery against all who oppose them. It would be a sorry rule indeed which would commit the forces of the law to the support of such tactics.

Page 85:

The right to engage in lawful conduct and to be protected therein against the lawless is the fundamental reason for the existence of organized government. The protection of the right, therefore, is equally vital to government regardless of the benefits which its exercise may or may not confer, for if the right is not protected, government has failed in its basic function. While this note concerns itself only with the specific rights covered by the First Amendment, it is earnestly felt that rights not coming within this category should be afforded no less degree of protection than those that do. In other words, the right to preach a sermon, to produce an opera, to continue operating a strikebound factory, or to wear a long beard in a town where long beards are unpopular [See Chafee, Freedom of Speech in the United States 151–152 (1941 ed.)] seem equally fundamental when it comes to vindicating them against the lawless. The basic question here is not the social utility of the particular right at stake, but the manner in which society is to meet a challenge which goes to the very purpose for which it exists.

[351] Paper: “The First Duty of Government: Protection, Liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment.” By Steven J. Heyman. Duke Law Journal, February 1991. Pages 507–571. <scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu>

Page 525:

Under the Constitution, the function of protection was divided between the federal government, which was to serve “general and national purposes,” and the states, which retained authority over local affairs.94 Thus, the national government was responsible for security against foreign danger.95 In addition, the United States was obligated under the Constitution to “protect each of [the states] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature… against domestic Violence.”96 The states, on the other hand, were to retain their role as “the immediate and visible guardian[s] of life and property,” a role that they performed through “the ordinary administration of civil and criminal justice.” 97 Thus, Madison wrote, the powers reserved to the states extended “to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”98

Page 526:

Apart from these limited provisions, the original Constitution did not protect individual rights-negative or positive-in relation to the states. Instead, the founders apparently assumed that the states could be relied upon to protect adequately the rights of their citizens. As we shall see, the mid-nineteenth-century conflicts over slavery and civil rights led the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to reject this assumption, and to incorporate a right to protection by state government into the Federal Constitution.

Page 545:

Although the right to protection was a fundamental principle of general constitutional and legal theory, it had limited recognition in the original Constitution. Instead, in most respects, the Constitution left the protection of the rights of individuals under the control of the states.242 Moreover, slavery meant that most blacks were denied all protection of their rights, a principle asserted by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case,243 which declared that blacks had no rights that whites were bound to respect.244

[352] The Federalist Papers. By Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. October 27, 1787–May 28, 1788. <www.gutenberg.org>

Federalist Paper 45. By James Madison, January 26, 1788 (<www.gutenberg.org>):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

[353] The Federalist Papers. By Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. October 27, 1787–May 28, 1788. <www.gutenberg.org>

Federalist Paper 9: By Alexander Hamilton. November 21, 1787:

The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.

[354] Book: The AntiFederalist Papers. Edited with an introduction by Morton Borden. Michigan State University Press, 1965.

Antifederalist Paper 32, By Brutus. Published December 27, 1787 in The New-York Journal. [Regarding the proposed constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: “common defense and general welfare,” and Clause 18: “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper.”]

It is therefore evident, that the legislature under this constitution may pass any law which they think proper. … Not only are these terms very comprehensive, and extend to a vast number of objects, but the power to lay and collect has great latitude; it will lead to the passing a vast number of laws, which may affect the personal rights of the citizens of the states, expose their property to fines and confiscation, and put their lives in jeopardy. It opens the door to a swarm of revenue and excise officers to prey upon the honest and industrious part of the community, [and] eat up their substance….

Antifederalist Paper 33, By Brutus. Published December 27, 1787 in The New-York Journal. [Regarding the proposed constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: “Power To lay and collect Taxes” to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare.”]

This power, exercised without limitation, will introduce itself into every corner of the city, and country… To provide for the general welfare is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, and both may profess, that they have in view the general welfare… The government would always say, their measures were designed and calculated to promote the public good; and there being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves.

[355] Ruling: Barron v Baltimore. U.S. Supreme Court, January Term, 1833. <caselaw.lp.findlaw.com>

The plaintiff in error contends, that it comes within that clause in the fifth amendment to the constitution, which inhibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. He insists, that this amendment being in favor of the liberty of the citizen, ought to be so construed as to restrain the legislative power of a state, as well as that of the United States. If this proposition be untrue, the court can take no jurisdiction of the cause.

The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes.

If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.

[356] Paper: “The First Duty of Government: Protection, Liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment.” By Steven J. Heyman. Duke Law Journal, February 1991. Pages 507–571. <scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu>

Pages 547–548:

Most Republicans, however, believed that the states had failed to fulfill this duty, in the past as well as the present. No state, declared Representative John A. Bingham of Ohio, ever had a “right to deny protection to any free citizen of the United States within their limits in the rights of life, liberty, and property.”259 Yet, as Representative John M. Broomall of Pennsylvania observed, during the intense national controversy over slavery between 1830 and 1860, “everybody knows that the rights and immunities of citizens were habitually and systematically denied in” [the southern] States to the citizens of other States.”260 Since the war began, stressed Bingham, the Confederate states had flagrantly violated the rights of citizens who had remained loyal to the Union.261

Above all, the southern states had denied protection to blacks held as slaves. Under the laws of the slave states, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan explained, a slave “was nothing but a chattel, subject to the will of his owner, and unprotected in his rights by the law of the State where he happened to live.”262 The status of slavery, Bingham agreed, meant that blacks had been refused “protection in life [and] property.”263

[357] Harper’s Book of Facts. Edited by Charlton T. Lewis. Harper & Brothers, 1906.

Pennsylvania abolished slavery by gradual emancipation, 1780; Massachusetts by a Bill of Rights prefixed to the constitution, 1780; New Hampshire by her constitution, 1784; Connecticut and Rhode Island, 1784; Vermont by her constitution; New York by gradual abolition, 1799; further legislation in 1817 decreed total abolition after 4 July, 1827, when about 10,000 slaves were liberated; New Jersey, gradual abolition, 1804.

NOTE: For a history of slavery around the world and in the U.S., see Just Facts’ research on racial issues.

[358] Ruling: Dred Scott v. Sandford. U.S. Supreme Court, March 6, 1857. Decided 7–2. Majority: Taney, Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Daniel, Campbell, Catron. Concurring: Taney, Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Daniel, Campbell, Catron. Dissenting: Curtis, McLean. <caselaw.lp.findlaw.com>

Majority:

The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them. …

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

[359] Webpage: “Civil War Facts.” American Battlefield Trust. Accessed July 24, 2018 at <www.battlefields.org>

“The war began when the Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. The war ended in Spring, 1865. Robert E. Lee surrendered the last major Confederate army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865. The last battle was fought at Palmito Ranch, Texas, on May 13, 1865. … The Northern armies were victorious, and the rebellious states returned to the Union.”

[360] 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified December 6, 1865. <www.justfacts.com>

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[361] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Page 454:

Well before the war ended, this block, which came to be known as Radicals or Radical Republicans, assumed a more positive role in opposing the reconstruction program and favoring more extreme measures. This group objected to Lincoln’s program on several counts. First, while the program implied the abolition of slavery, it guaranteed neither Negro suffrage nor Negro civil rights. Many Radicals were convinced that the Negro ought to be elevated forcibly to a position of civil, social and political equality with the whites.

Page 458:

By early January of 1866, the Radicals [Radical Republicans] were openly formulating their own program, and so preparing for a decisive conflict with the President. … A series of tentative Radical measures eventually led to the formulation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, adopted by Congress in June 1866.

Pages 460–461:

Although the Democratic minority continued to support the [Johnson] administration, the Radical Republican majority promptly passed all important reconstruction measures over Johnson’s veto. …

After some further delay, the Joint Committee on April 30 [1866] reported out a far more comprehensive constitutional amendment, destined to emerge with some modifications as the Fourteenth Amendment. …

These provisions, largely the work of Representative John A. Bingham of Ohio, were intended to remove all doubt as to the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act, as Stevens presently made clear in debate.

[362] Book: Processes of Constitutional Decision-Making: Cases and Materials (5th edition). By Paul Brest and others. Aspen Publishers, 2006.

Senator Jacob Howard, Speech Introducing the Fourteenth Amendment

Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866

[Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan was a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. He was the floor manager for the Amendment in the Senate. In this speech, he introduces the Amendment on the floor of the Senate and explains its purposes.]

I can only promise to present to the Senate, in a very succinct way, the views and the motives which influenced th[e] committee, so far as I understand those views and motives, in presenting the report which is now before us for consideration, and the ends it aims to accomplish. …

The first section [of the 14th Amendment] … relates to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, and to the rights and privileges of all persons, whether citizens or others, under the laws of the United States. …

To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be—for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature—to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.

Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizen solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. States are not affected by them, and it has been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legislation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress.

Now, sir, there is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year. The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees….

[363] 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified July 9, 1868. <www.justfacts.com>

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. …

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[364] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Pages 460–461:

After some further delay, the Joint Committee on April 30 [1866] reported out a far more comprehensive constitutional amendment, destined to emerge with some modifications as the Fourteenth Amendment. …

These provisions, largely the work of Representative John A. Bingham of Ohio, were intended to remove all doubt as to the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act, as Stevens presently made clear in debate.

[365] Article: “John Bingham and the Background to the Fourteenth Amendment.” By Paul Finkelman (Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law). Akron Law Review, 2003. Pages 671–692. <www.uakron.edu>

Page 671:

Two other stories may be a better guide to what the members of Congress, and especially John Bingham, the primary author of Section one of the Fourteenth Amendment, had in mind when they wrote the Amendment. An understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment begins not in Congress, but in the history leading up to the Civil War. The first crucial story in understanding the Fourteenth Amendment is the striking changes in the law of race relations that took place in the North—especially in Bingham’s home state of Ohio—in the dozen or so years before the Civil War began. The second story is about the South, and the legal repression and brutal racial violence that took place there immediately after the Civil War ended.

[366] “Speech Introducing the Fourteenth Amendment.” By Representative John Bingham (R–OH), February 28th, 1866. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, House of Representatives, 1st Session. Pages 1088–1095. <www.justfacts.com>

The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights that belong to the States. They elect their Legislatures; they enact their laws for the punishment of crimes against life, liberty, or property; but in the event of the adoption of this amendment, if they conspire together to enact laws refusing equal protection to life, liberty, or property, the Congress is thereby vested with power to hold them to answer before the bar of the national courts for the violation of their oaths and of the rights of their fellow-men. Why should it not be so? That is the question.

Why should it not be so? Is the bill of rights to stand in our Constitution hereafter, as in the past five years within eleven States, a mere dead letter? It is absolutely essential to the safety of the people that it should be enforced. ….

Is it not essential to the unity of the people that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? Is it not essential to the unity of the Government and the unity of the people that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in his Union in the rights of life and liberty and property?

Why, sir, what an anomaly is presented today to the world! We have the power to vindicate the personal liberty and all the personal rights of the citizen on the remotest sea, under the frowning batteries of the remotest tyranny on this earth, while we have not the power in time of peace to enforce the citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and property within the limits of South Carolina after her State government shall be recognized, and her constitutional relations restored. ….

Representatives, to you I appeal, that hereafter, by your act and the approval of the loyal people of this country, every man in every State of the Union, in accordance with the written words of your Constitution, may, by the national law, be secured in the equal protection of his personal rights. Your Constitution provides that no man, no matter what his color, no matter beneath what sky he may have been born, no matter in what disastrous conflict or by what tyrannical hand his liberty may have been cloven down, ho matter how poor, no matter how friendless, no matter how ignorant, shall be deprived of life or liberty or property without due process of law—law in its highest sense, that law which is the perfection of human reason, and which is impartial, equal, exact justice; that justice which requires that every man shall have his right; that justice which is the highest duty of nations as it is the imperishable attribute of the God of nations.

[367] Ruling: United States v. Cruikshank. U.S. Supreme Court, October 1, 1875. Decided 5–4. Majority: Waite, Swayne, Miller, Field, Strong. Dissenting: Clifford, Davis, Bradley, Hunt. <caselaw.findlaw.com>

Majority:

This case comes here with a certificate by the judges of the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana that they were divided in opinion upon a question which occurred at the hearing. It presents for our consideration an indictment containing sixteen counts, divided into two series of eight counts each, based upon sect. 6 of the Enforcement Act of May 31, 1870 [a.k.a. the Civil Rights Act of 1870]. That section is as follows:–

“That if two or more persons shall band or conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway, or upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provision of this act, or to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same, such persons shall be held guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court,-the fine not to exceed $5,000, and the imprisonment not to exceed ten years; and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to, and disabled from holding, any office or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the constitution or laws of the United States.” 16 Stat. 141.

The general charge in the first eight counts is that of “banding,” and in the second eight, that of “conspiring” together to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color, with the intent thereby to hinder and prevent them in their free exercise and enjoyment of rights and privileges “granted and secured” to them “in common with all other good citizens of the United States by the constitution and laws of the United States.” …

The first and ninth counts state the intent of the defendants to have been to hinder and prevent the citizens named in the free exercise and enjoyment of their “lawful right and privilege to peaceably assemble together with each other and with other citizens of the United States for a peaceful and lawful purpose.” The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. It “derives its source,” to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 211, “from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.” It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection. As no direct power over it was granted to Congress, it remains, according to the ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden, id. 203, subject to State jurisdiction. [92 U.S. 542, 552] Only such existing rights were committed by the people to the protection of Congress as came within the general scope of the authority granted to the national government.

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging “the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone. …

The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for any thing else connected with the powers or the duties of the national government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. If it had been alleged in [92 U.S. 542, 553] these counts that the object of the defendants was to prevent a meeting for such a purpose, the case would have been within the statute, and within the scope of the sovereignty of the United States. Such, however, is not the case. The offence, as stated in the indictment, will be made out, if it be shown that the object of the conspiracy was to prevent a meeting for any lawful purpose whatever.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the “powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,” “not surrendered or restrained” by the Constitution of the United States. …

The third and eleventh counts are even more objectionable. They charge the intent to have been to deprive the citizens named, they being in Louisiana, “of their respective several lives and liberty of person without due process of law.” This is nothing else than alleging a conspiracy to falsely imprison or murder citizens of the United States, being within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana. The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. “To secure these rights,” says the Declaration of Independence, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these “unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.” Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the States. It is no more the duty or within the power of the United States to punish for a conspiracy [92 U.S. 542, 554] to falsely imprison or murder within a State, than it would be to punish for false imprisonment or murder itself.

The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. As was said by Mr. Justice Johnson, in Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 244, it secures “the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributive justice.” These counts in the indictment do not call for the exercise of any of the powers conferred by this provision in the amendment. …

The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; but this provision does not, any more than the one which precedes it, and which we have just considered, add any thing [92 U.S. 542, 555] to the rights which one citizen has under the Constitution against another. The equality of the rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism. Every republican government is in duty bound to protect all its citizens in the enjoyment of this principle, if within its power. That duty was originally assumed by the States; and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the national govern