Well, by my calculation - that means there is a 0.00625% chance of being murdered if you don't have a criminal record. What is that - 6 thousandths of a percent?

I also have a feeling that some of those 40 with no criminal history are not entirely innocent....

Baltimore may have a rate that is 5 times higher than Britain. Do you think that may be a reflection of the number of guns "in play." Also, as I understand it, you are pretty much being videotaped everywhere in London; how much of an affect do you think that has?

How many of the remaining 40 were also the result of a violent dispute between people with a history together, domestic or otherwise? Not that I'm trying to justify our murder rate, by any means, it's just that I think the chances of being randomly murdered in Baltimore are slimmer than 1 in 16,000.

I'd also like to hear what is working in London? One thing we need here are solutions.

You make some rather glib assumptions about statistics in both directions. First, you assume that having a criminal record means you are a criminal (I've escaped having a criminal record by sheer luck in several instances, and I'm a regular white-collar schmoe.) Second, you assume that *not* having a criminal record means that you aren't a criminal, just as N. suggested above.

If you have any desire to really claim that you know what the chances of a non-criminal being murdered are, you need estimates for what percentage of criminals have criminal records and what percentage of non-criminals have criminal records.

Which inevitably will lead you into questions about what "criminal" means, which will lead you to question the whole enterprise of trying to calculate the chance of being murdered if you are not a criminal...

"They point out that as a white professional man I am as unlikely to be murdered here as I am anywhere. What do the figures say, though?"

You can test out that theory by taking a walk down any dark alley in East Baltimore at 2 am for a few days in a row. I don't think it would be a good idea.

Call me cynical, but I'd be willing to bet that some of the murdered in this city who didn't have a record had just hadn't been caught yet.

You could also break the statistics down by neighborhood. You are less likely to be caught in the line of fire in some areas than others--just take a look at that map.

Unfortunately, race and socio-economic status also seem to play a large role in who is murdered. Regarding your Nov 4th post, the point about you being unlikely to be murdered because you are a white, professional man is probably right on.

You compare Baltimore's statistics to Britain, but that is comparing a city to a country. Would the stats be different if you compared to London?

I've tried to sum up that statement to friends and family before, but never managed to get it out so succinctly. As a city teacher who has spent years in both East and West Baltimore I've seen a lot of the bad this city has to offer, but a lot of the really great too.

People always ask me why I live and work here and want to know if my life resembles that of McNulty (drinking my pains away) or how many Corner Boys I have. For now, I'll point them this way. Keep up the good work.

Just a guess, but if you are at a downtown bar or street corner know for trouble or drug dealing at 2am, you have a much greater chance of being murdered than if you were home in bed with your wife and kids.

thank you on your different perspective about our city and its murder problem. You touched on the number of drug related deaths and how that increased the risk of murder.I would be interested your view on 2 points: 1)How the 2 countries handle their drug problems and how you see that impacting the crime rate.I would invite you to pick and inner city block and interview everyone on that block and see how much damage drugs had done to those living on that block either directly or indirectly.

I'm interested in whether because of the prevalence of drug related crime if importantly Justin and other local journalists, and indeed you Mark think or agree and could answer the following:

(i) How much of the crime in Baltimore is drug related?

(ii) Do Locals see this as a cause of the failure of the so called 'war on drugs'?

(iii) If there is a tacit agreement that the failure of the war on drugs is a major component of the crime here (i.e. pushing it underground, black markets, gang wars etc), do those who live locally think legalisation or decriminalisation is an alternative policy prescription?

LM - Here's some answers from one resident of the city (me).

(i) - a lot
(ii) - yes
(iii) - yes

Mark, I'm curious - which cities in Britain do you think resemble Baltimore the most in terms of crime, overall socio-economic character, etc? Manchester? Liverpool? Leeds?

I recall working on an assignment in Manchester, England when a british coworker warned me to be careful there had recently been 8 muggings there in a month, I simply smiled at him and said where I'm from we have that many homicides in a week

Tale of two cities? - you mean white Baltimore and black Baltimore?

Guns don't kill people just like pencils don't misspell words.

You should google "Zach Sowers" to learn about totally innocent people becoming victims of petty crime. Last spring, we had a bunch of roaming thug-teenagers attacking people in the Inner Harbor, a supposedly 'safe' area. The difference between Baltimore and other major US Cities is that the criminals see no intra-city boundaries in Baltimore whereas they tend to stay in rough areas in other cities.

Okay... I am reading this two ways, and I don't know if either is the point Mark wants to get across.

1) White professionals (which apparently is a synonym for "non-criminal") don't generally get killed in Baltimore, but criminals do. So it's not really all that dangerous really because... a white guy who doesn't get involved in drugs isn't in danger?

Baltimore City's prosecutors still try and convict criminals who murder criminals, I hope? Right? Because victims of murder deserve justice, and the citizens of the city deserve it too? Or are we only interested in taking criminals off the street because they may accidentally cap a white professional (aka, non-criminal)?

If this is what the subtext is, then I think you may have missed an important point in The Wire. Simon et al. show that individuals make choices, true. But structural violence and serious systematic inequality help constrain people and limit their viable choices.

You can be honest about this and still hold criminals accountable for crimes.

Or is it

2) Being in the privileged class means a person can feel safe when other people can't. And, if criminals get killed, than Baltimore isn't a safe city for them. Or for those at high risk of becoming criminals because they aren't in the privileged class.

It could be that the statistics are all about them and their experiences and problems and not, in fact, about those of us who are safe.

Personally, I'd prefer option 2 to be the more accurate reading.

If you have a crazy high murder rate, you have a crazy high murder rate. It doesn't change the fact that the city isn't safe if a particular class of citizens by and large is.