Luz wrote:
Rates are not the same as absolute numbers
No kidding. But rates are more relevant when looking at whether "crime is growing" or not, aren't they? [Especially when comparing widely separated years, when the population numbers were quite different.]
What people are mostly interested in is whether any individual has a greater or lesser chance of being a crime victim. And rates, not absolute numbers, give that info.
Jdjd wrote:
Do you have a source for that? Also, 15% is dramatic to you?
I see that Karl Hungus provided a source for the numbers. I also had very recently read something similar about Chicago's declining numbers of murders.
And I noticed that the NYTimes actually repeated the 15% figure today (or maybe it was yesterday?).
BTW, on stuff like this--yeah, a 15% decline just from one year to the next is really very significant. "Dramatic" is not too strong a word.