Detroit under-reports murder; could overtake Baltimore
Detroit, not Baltimore, might be the No. 1 city when it comes to per-capita murder. The Detroit Free-Press is reporting that the city under-reported its murder count to the FBI, which published the numbers earlier this week.
Instead of 306 slayings in Detroit in 2008, it might be 423, the prosecutor's office told the news organization. If that's the case, that would push Baltimore to the No. 2 slot.
Baltimore had 234 slayings last year, giving it a per-capita rate of 37 per 100,000 residents, the highest in the country for cities above 500,000 in population. Detroit's, using the 306 number, had a rate of 34. That would change depending on what the new figures show.
Worthy: Detroit homicide drop doesn't add up
More than 100 left off books, she says
BY SUZETTE HACKNEY
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
Contrary to FBI statistics, more than 100 Detroit homicides were left off the books last year, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said Wednesday.
Worthy said the Detroit Police Department underreported that 306 people were killed in 2008. She said the homicide number is actually 423, though she would not disclose how she arrived at that figure.
"I have no interest in trying to make the city look bad," Worthy said Wednesday. "We have resource problems, and in order to adequately allocate our resources, I need to have an accurate depiction of the crime occurring in the city."
Comments
Number one or two, it does not matter. What does is that you still have the problem
Posted by: Joe Kaszak | June 4, 2009 12:12 PM
Without full transparency of data being made available in free and open formats we allow government agencies to game the numbers and spin to make them look better than might actually be the case.
Posted by: Paul | June 4, 2009 12:24 PM
Baltimore also under-reports homicides. And we under-report more than Detroit. So Baltimore wins. Bodymore, Murderland. We have more murders per capita, more misclassified homicides per capita, and more overall misclassified homicides. Where do we pick-up our trophies?
Posted by: Blake | June 4, 2009 12:40 PM
The dirty little secret is that the Baltimore Police lie and under-report as well.
Posted by: Bill | June 4, 2009 1:13 PM
who can clean a city when criminals and police committ crime?
Posted by: sjc | June 4, 2009 1:16 PM
Baltimore has been manipulating the crime stastics forever. This was very evident during the OMalley years as Mayor. Big B still #1 Murder Capital of USA. Always tell anyone, if you visit Baltimore, be careful where you go, the Inner Harbor looks nice, but two blocks in either direction......not so nice, could be dangerous to health and welfare.
Posted by: mjw | June 4, 2009 1:40 PM
Two blocks east of the harbor is pretty safe. It's now called Harbor East. When was the last time you were in Baltimore?
Posted by: blarg | June 4, 2009 2:07 PM
To me any where you go is potentially dangerous. It also depends on where you live in Baltimore and the element you are around. I have lived in Baltimore the majority of my life....and guess what I have never seen a body laying in the street, never been robbed at gun point (knock on wood), the only time I hear of crime is through the news. I don't know any gang members, my children has never been terrorized. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but it's not as bad as it seems. As far as the murders my question is always they were either associated with the bad element. Random crimes yes they happen but I think it's far and few between IMO. Girls killed because they picked the wrong boyfriend, guys killed they picked the wrong friends, grandparents killed well maybe that can be seen as random OR retaliation for something someone else did. So crime in either direction can be said about any city large or small.
Posted by: cheydia | June 4, 2009 2:58 PM
Don't worry .... it hasn't hit 300 yet. Mr. O'Malley solved the biggest problem in the World ... his Police Comm. manipulated the numbers and we only had what 280 or 290 something. That seemed to be an acceptable number to him.
Posted by: Dave | June 4, 2009 4:01 PM
WRONG... THE NUMBER THEY CAME CLEAN WITH WAS 339, NOT 423.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7884362
No, you're wrong, in that you didn't understand what I was saying. The prosecutor suggested, as the link showed, that the number *could be* 423, but that wasn't what the total was revised to.
Posted by: Jon_From_The_D | September 6, 2010 7:05 PM