Posted by Andrew Zajac at 6:09 p.m. CST
Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.
Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty pulled out the make-up bag today at a Justice Department briefing to discuss the final version of the FBI's annual scorecard for lawbreaking.
"Today's numbers, with the Uniform Crime Report data overall, is good news," said McNulty. "The overall rate of crime is at its lowest...in more than 30 years."
Of course, the rate of violent crime in 2005, the kind that truly disturbs and frightens many people, is up 2.3 percent, driven by increases in murder, robbery and aggravated assault. That's the largest percentage increase since the early 1990s.
McNulty acknowledged the uptick when asked about it by reporters, and he speculated that it could be caused by a combination of increased gang activity, a rise in the use of methamphetamine, and demographics, by which he meant an increase in the number of males aged 18 to 34.
Few credible voices question the priority McNulty and other top Justice officials have placed on anti-terror work after the 9-11 attacks.
But some voices in local law enforcement have begun complaining that the emphasis on homeland security is overshadowing crimefighting.
That's discomfitting to Justice leaders on two levels.
1. Being perceived as insufficiently attentive to crime makes them look bad.
2. It could jeopardize improved cooperation and communication forged of necessity by the attacks, between the feds and local authorities.
Making things stickier, the costs of homeland security has sucked up money Justice honchos might have used for crime-fighting grants to massage the locals.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is nothing if not publicly unflappable, gave an uncharacteristically defensive response when asked a couple of weeks back if he thought he should shoulder some responsibility for the increase in violent crime which had been hinted at in preliminary stats released in June.
Said the AG: "Listen, I'm the chief law enforcement officer of the country and if there's something...if the reason crime is going up is because of something I'm not doing, of course I'll take responsibility. If there are other reasons for it, I'd like to know what they are before taking on responsibility for it. I think that's fair."
Here's the link to the whole FBI crime report:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"Listen, I'm the chief law enforcement officer of the country and if there's something...if the reason crime is going up is because of something I'm not doing, of course I'll take responsibility. If there are other reasons for it, I'd like to know what they are before taking on responsibility for it. I think that's fair."
I would hope that as the chief law enforcment he would know what the reasons would be. I think thats fair!!!
Posted by: bill r. | September 18, 2006 6:42 PM
Bill keep up the good work and stay safe. One Reason Midwest crime is going up is the meth labs.But in all our law enforcment have a handle on it. But these budget cuts are going to hurt. Right now my sons friend went all the way in EMT training and because of Federal cuts waiting list are now huge.
Posted by: Dale Peters | September 18, 2006 9:04 PM
There is plenty of "spinning" going on here. And a lot of it is by reporter Andrew Zajac.
Reading the report, it shows the rate of violent crime as 620.1 per 100,000 people in 1986, and 469.2 per 100,000 in 2005. Quite a decrease. During the Bush presidency, the rate of violent crime has decreased from 504.5 per 100,000 (2001) to 469.2. This is a success, not a setback.
Read the actual report, and draw your own conclusions. Don't bother to read Zajac's spinning of the report.
Posted by: Bruce | September 19, 2006 8:14 AM
Once again Bruce attacks the messenger. Can you for once comment on the point of the article? Violent crime increased in the last year. "The largest percentage increase since the early 1990s". Comment on that. Don't distract w/ statistics that reach back to 1986.
Posted by: jethro | September 19, 2006 11:17 AM
Eliminate Prohibition and respect the 2nd amendment and crime will go down. You will never eliminate all crime.
More research is needed on a relationship with crime and drug sales and drug use.
Gonzales is an amatuer, not an expert.
Posted by: Saturdaynightspecial | September 20, 2006 4:49 AM
Mr. Zajac's assertion that "the rate of violent crime in 2005 ... is up 2.3 percent" is flat wrong, as anyone who reads the report and can handle 5th grade math can testify. What went up 2.25% (rounded to 2.3% by Zajac) in the 2005 stats (versus 2004) is the (reported) violent crime total, NOT the rate. As pointed out above, the rate figures 2001-2005 point to a large Bush administration success in fighting crime of all sorts, including violent crime. The stats are in this part of the report:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
I suggested above that commentators should read the actual report before making personal attacks. I repeat that suggestion.
Posted by: Bruce | September 20, 2006 8:46 AM
Bruce,
Taken fromt he first bullet point underneath the chart:
"The estimated number of violent crime offenses in 2005 was 1,390,695, an increase of 2.3 percent over the 2004 estimate."
And by the way the violent crime rate increased 6 points from 2004 to 2005. Prior to that there were 14 consecutive years of decreases in the violent crime RATE.
Sorry to bring facts and perspective to the equation. Keep attacking the messengers, hatchet man.
Posted by: jethro | September 20, 2006 9:53 AM
Jethro, the 2.3% increase you cite is the total numbers figure, not the rate. And Mr. Zajac specifically cited the "rate", which I specifically debunked. The rate of violent crime actually increased from 2004-2005 1.3%, not 2.3% and certainly not 6%. Again, I urge you, please read the report before you make these personal attacks.
Posted by: Bruce | September 21, 2006 9:44 AM