Despite the narrative being presented, it is crucial to scrutinize the real picture behind the crime statistics in the United States under the current leadership of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. The crime data feeds a tale of inconsistency, a highly influenced by unique socio-economic alterations in locales, far removed from the jurisdiction of the White House.
Claims made by politicians on either side of the aisle can often be skewed or exaggerated, but one thing that local law enforcement and experts readily acknowledge is that the actions of the Oval Office typically make little to no impact on local crime policing policies.
Crime is a persistent topic of interest in political arenas, especially during election seasons, with parties often wielding opposing narratives about crime rates based on their interpretation of the available data. The issue of crime has been ranked fourth in importance in the upcoming elections as indicated in a Harvard-CAPS Harris Poll.
The Biden-Harris administration vehemently upholds the claim that crime rates have witnessed a reduction during their tenure. White House communiqués have even proposed the notion of violent crime being at its lowest in the last half-century, supposedly supported by new data from the FBI.
However, the former President, Donald Trump, has vehemently challenged this perspective, maintaining that crime has escalated since he vacated office. In his verbal sparring with Harris during a September debate, Trump emphatically declared that crime rates had skyrocketed.
Trump presented his argument at a subsequent Philadelphia rally, referencing the esteemed National Crime Victimization Survey which allegedly indicated a nettlesome 43% upsurge in violent crime since his departure from office.
It’s interesting to ponder how such varying narratives are spun from the same statistical pool. Politics are notorious for selective use of data, and this appears to hold true in this debate.
National crime reports, like the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, are frequented by politicians. However, the data from these two sources slightly varies. The former relies on individuals reporting crimes committed against them, while the latter relies on data submitted by police agencies nationwide.
The data consistency of these two sources shows a decline in crime since the 1990s. Yet, when it serves their campaign goals, politicians often highlight selective statistics. The National Crime Victimization Survey and Uniform Crime Report of 2023 refute any substantial increase in crime from 2022.
Despite evidence contesting Trump’s theory of a rising crime rate, he debunks the necessity of data and leans on what appears to be mere sentiment. Heightening the complexity, the interpretability, and therefore usability, of crime data are incredibly intricate.
Interestingly, both narratives are backed by reliable data, albeit taken out of context. The discrepancies in these crime statistics could be attributed to the sources of the data themselves.
Each source, the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Uniform Crime Report, carry their own strengths and inherent limitations. The former covers a broader range of crimes, but excludes homicide as dead victims cannot respond to the survey. The latter provides reliable estimates of crimes reported to the police, but it doesn’t account for unreported crimes.
Despite these differences, both data sources are trusted. In recent years, the FBI has been making continual strides, with crime data coverage of 93.5% of the population in 2022 and 95.2 % in 2023.
The claims made by candidates from different factions regarding crime under their administrations can be endlessly debated. However, it is vital to remember that the Federal Government is merely one among the many factors influencing crime trends. The pandemic-induced surge in murder rates during 2020 is a stark example. Each city and each department have their unique requirements and challenges. They will continue to take necessary steps to ensure their community’s safety, even if it doesn’t align with the federal government’s stance.