Comment by gottorf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gottorf | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

In case this isn't a rhetorical question, the homicide rate in DC is such that it beats out all 50 states by a considerable amount[0]. (The most murderous state, Louisiana, is roughly half as murderous as DC.)

There were over 5000 auto thefts reported last year[1] in an area that has about 350k registered cars. Statistically speaking, more than one in a hundred cars were stolen in one year!

Similarly, there were roughly 26k cases of property crime reported for an overall rate of property crime victimization of 3-4% of the population.

If I lived in DC, my day-to-day life would be affected a whole lot more by this level of disorder than a political event that took place on one day in one building. Of course, you're free to value things differently, but it's an indictment of how much antisocial behavior some Americans are willing to tolerate that people are shocked by the statement that "crime in DC is bad".

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_intenti...

[1]: https://mpdc.dc.gov/dailycrime

Okay, now do cities. DC is not a state.

They don't want to do that because they'd have to admit that Marksville LA has about twice the violent crime rate.

I have no problem admitting that other cities have higher violent crime rates, though I have no particular knowledge of Marksville, LA. I'm not sure why you would suggest that. I would approve of stronger efforts of curbing violent crime in those places, as well. I feel terribly for the innocents who live in those cities, as much as do for those in DC.

Sure. At a rate of 26.6 homicides per 100k as of the conclusion of 2024, it would belong in the top 10 most murderous cities in the US, and would appear to fall in the top 100 in the world.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. There are a handful of other American cities with worse crime, so we should give DC a pass?

Constitutionally it belongs to the federal government, which devolved some level of home rule to the local government starting about 50 years ago. The evidence seems clear that local authorities aren't doing the job well.

When you don't give the local authorities the money and autonomy to do so it should not be a surprise that they cannot effectively do their duty. When you take a look at the trend of the data over time it doesn't tell a story of crime that isn't being managed. It may not be as quick or as thorough, but it has been downward trending.

> When you don't give the local authorities the money and autonomy to do so

DC spent over $26k per resident, well above the overall US federal budget of roughly $20k per person. And the DC budget doesn't even have to account for a globe-spanning military!

What autonomy is it lacking that it can't put repeat violent offenders behind bars?

> When you take a look at the trend of the data over time it doesn't tell a story of crime that isn't being managed. It may not be as quick or as thorough, but it has been downward trending.

Outside of six whole years, the homicide rate in DC hasn't been under 20/100k in 50 years. "Downward trending" from 80 in 1990 to 20s now is great in isolation, but terrible when you realize that places like Paris and London are in the low single digits.

Perhaps it is worth going to actually read some of the limitations (representation, budget, taxation) of what the government of DC is actually capable of doing versus doing a simple straight line math exercise. Crime is a problem, but taken within context it isn't anywhere near as bad as Baltimore or Philadelphia.

You keep citing the homicide rate but do not consider the geography and constraints of the capital region, i.e., some of the crime and violent offenders are from non-residents. You can't simply compare it to a city like London or Paris for many reasons.

> Crime is a problem, but taken within context it isn't anywhere near as bad as Baltimore or Philadelphia.

Baltimore and Philly are worse, yes. That's little reprieve for the average Joe living in DC surrounded by disorder. DC, being exclusively federal territory, has the unique legal situation where the president could deploy the National Guard for policing.

> You keep citing the homicide rate but do not consider the geography and constraints of the capital region, i.e., some of the crime and violent offenders are from non-residents. You can't simply compare it to a city like London or Paris for many reasons.

I don't understand your line of reasoning. Do you care to clarify? Neither London, nor Paris, nor any other city in this country are islands where entry and exit are controlled. Some American cities with really bad crime, like St. Louis or Philly, abut state lines and likely get a lot of cross-state criminal traffic as well.

I think the problem that many people, including me, have with your justification is very similar to trumps own televised justification: its vague and selective.

Fact is there are other "worthy" candidate cities to deploy NG to, to counter crime. Additionally, trump is unreliable and generally unfit as a POTUS. Given these two, the concern about trumps tendency to abuse of power, which he demonstrated already, is a very valid response to him mobilizing NG in the most sensitive political region.

You cant calm these concerns with comparably similar crime rates.

Ontop, isnt it an assumption, that NG can actually help with rampand crime? I imagine they project hard force on the streets but do not react to 911 calls.

Also, your budget justification was vague too. The total spending per capita does not allow any clues on relative spending on law enforcement. There must be a reason why its significantly higher and maybe thats why LE falls short too.

> Fact is there are other "worthy" candidate cities to deploy NG to, to counter crime.

DC is unique among those cities because it is federal territory where the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction, according to the constitution. It's harder to deploy the National Guard to St. Louis, for example, because you also have to deal with the government of Missouri (and probably that of Illinois, too, since the metro area spans both states).

In fact, a senator famously called for troops to be deployed to those cities in the height of the unrest in 2020[0]. He was excoriated for it by his political opponents, and the editor in charge of the NYT opinion pages resigned over allowing that piece to be published. So there are people who would like to see dramatically stronger law enforcement everywhere, not just DC.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...

Politics aside: Agreed; you’re correct about DC being wholly unique which is why it’s difficult to compare to other cities (by the numbers) for a lot of regions. There really is not an option other than the National Guard in such a situation hence why there’s a carve out in the 1970s (?) act.

I am avoiding the argument regarding stronger law enforcement because there is a very little vague basis for it in this case. But legally speaking, it is within the letter of the law because there isn’t another option without triggering the Posse Comitius act.

I wonder if the fact that of the top ten murderous states, nine of them are run by Republicans has anything to do with the fact that Trump hasn't even vaguely hinted at National Guard deployments there.

It's probably more the fact that DC constitutionally belongs to the federal government, so it's a lot easier for Trump to unilaterally deploy the National Guard there.

He didn’t seem to have any problem doing so in California…

And then last time anyone wanted him to deploy them in DC he apparently couldn’t because the mayor didn’t allow him to…

It’s got near zero to do with that.

How is it compared to New Orleans (34.7) since you mentioned Louisiana? Or Baltimore (58.3 WTF???) which is next door?

Sure thing.

Here is the list of the top-20 murder-rated cities in the US:

St. Louis, MO – Mayor Cara Spencer (DNC), DNC rule 76 years.

Baltimore, MD – Mayor Brandon Scott (DNC), DNC rule 56 years.

New Orleans, LA – Mayor LaToya Cantrell (DNC), DNC rule 153 years.

Detroit, MI – Mayor Mike Duggan (ex DNC), DNC rule 63 years

Cleveland, OH – Mayor Justin Bibb (DNC), DNC rule 35 years

Las Vegas, NV – Mayor Carolyn Goodman (Husband of ex-DNC mayor), DNC rule 82 years

Kansas City, MO – Mayor Quinton Lucas (DNC), DNC rule 34 years

Memphis, TN – Mayor Paul Young (DNC), DNC rule 53 years.

Newark, NJ – Mayor Ras Baraka (DNC), DNC rule 72 years.

Chicago, IL – Mayor Brandon Johnson (DNC), DNC rule 94 years.

Cincinnati, OH – Mayor Aftab Pureval (DNC), DNC rule 41 years

Philadelphia, PA – Mayor Cherelle Parker (DNC), DNC rule 74 years

Milwaukee, WI – Mayor Cavalier Johnson (DNC), DNC rule 65 years

Tulsa, OK – Mayor Monroe Nichols (DNC), only outlier in this list with significant non-DNC mayors

Pittsburgh, PA – Mayor Ed Gainey (DNC), DNC rule 91 years

Indianapolis, IN – Mayor Joe Hogsett (DNC), DNC rule 9 years.

Louisville, KY – Mayor Craig Greenberg (DNC), DNC rule 56 years

Oakland, CA – Mayor Sheng Thao (DNC), DNC rule 48 years

Washington, D.C. – Mayor Muriel Bowser (DNC), DNC rule 64 years

Atlanta, GA – Mayor Andre Dickens (DNC), DNC rule 164 years

The DNC doesn’t “rule” over cities. Mayors are not DNC representatives or federally aligned. This is a disingenuous report with no sources and should be held with Extreme skepticism.

Obviously you’re right but my god that is a very troubling coincidence…

You honestly believe murder rate is higher in cities because the mayor is a Democrat? Or are cities with Democrat mayors much larger and diverse than Republic mayor cities? Do you think the people in Democrat cities vote in a Democrat mayor because they want more murder?

You can read a million different things from a list of items with similar attributes. Especially one compiled without sources or any context of the regions of the US.

Not the GP, but obviously as a general rule, Republicans are the hard-on-crime (three strikes, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time") party and Democrats are the soft-on-crime (Soros DAs, "we must address the root causes of crime") party. Even the most partisan on either side must admit this to be true.

From there, it's not a great leap to think that places with a soft-on-crime attitude at the local level might engender more criminal activity than places with the opposite attitude. Similar to why there are so many homeless people in California: the weather is lovely and local attitudes are permissive to it compared to other places, so it sucks less to be homeless there than, say, North Dakota. I think it passes the smell test to suggest that it sucks less to be a violent criminal in Baltimore than, say, Carmel, Indiana.

> are cities with Democrat mayors much larger and diverse than Republic mayor cities

What are you implying about diversity?

Maybe you should just retort with a list of your favorite big Republican run cities as counter examples? I’ve noticed you haven’t mentioned any, just throwing out rural areas or small towns in Indiana?

I’m curious about the association between income disparity and crime rate.

I suspect big cities tend to have a larger underclass population and a larger wealthy class. Predictable results ensue: Democrat administrations, and higher crime rates.

> Republicans are the hard-on-crime party

That's hilarious. It is interesting that these memes are so persistent even in light of the present. No, Republicans are not 'hard on crime', they are hard on anybody that isn't a white, preferably wealthy, evangelical republican.

How convenient of your political opponents to be so cartoonishly evil, so that only the most ignorant or craven could possibly support them!

In reality, Trump gained in all minority populations between 2020 and 2024. He actually lost white Protestants, and white voters in general, in the same time period[0]. In income, too, poorer voters shifted more towards the Republican candidate, while the more well-off shifted more towards the Democratic candidate.

This has been a fascinating realignment in traditional partisan composition. You're probably right that historically the Republican Party has been hard on those who aren't white, rich, and religious; but over the past 10 years or so, it's actually the Democratic Party that is the party of the white, rich, and religious[1].

[0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/demographic-...

[1]: The new left-liberal dogma that comes in many names, but has a lot of overlap with traditional religion.

> Not the GP, but obviously as a general rule, Republicans are the hard-on-crime … party.

…To the point that they elected a convicted felon to the presidency.

Believe it or not, there exist pretty good reasons why some people don't find the whole "convicted felon" thing to be very persuasive. But besides, do you dispute my overall characterization of the two parties? Insofar as major political parties can be generalized, this is true, is it not?

> Not the GP, but obviously as a general rule, Republicans are the hard-on-crime (three strikes, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time") party and Democrats are the soft-on-crime (Soros DAs, "we must address the root causes of crime") party.

This is not true at all. There are plenty of violent, hard on crime moderate Democrats that run these cities. Your bias and romanticization of politics is showing. Again in your comment the description is disingenuous and lacking sources and evidence.

You might want to research the US moderate political beliefs. Many are RINOs and DINOs which pokes a lot of holes in the current culture war. Especially if you spew bs such as, Rs are hard on crime and Ds are soft on crime.

> What are you implying about diversity?

What are you implying about it? I am implying that any time people of diverse cultures and beliefs are packed together in an area like a city, you probably end up with a higher murder rate situation than if those people weren’t packed together into a city. Yes?

This isn't just a list of highest murder rates per capita, it's got some population threshold- likely the 300k population on wikipedia- which boils down to there being like 5 Republicans that have managed to get elected in large cities.

> This isn't just a list of highest murder rates per capita

It is: https://freedomforallamericans.org/highest-murders-in-us-by-...

Edit: To be fair though, it is A list. I'm sure there are others as well, as the authors note, its hard to gather most recent data

The point is that if you have a small municipality, a small number of murders would easily top your examples. St. Louis has a murder rate around 70/100k. As a toy example, Murphy, N.C., population 1700, saw a double murder last year. So their rate is almost 118/100k.

So yes, your list is applying some sort of population threshold, which means you are then also just selecting for big cities.

It's worth questioning why most people living in urban areas lean and vote more liberal than the rest of the country. Those areas also tend to make (and thus contribute) more money on average, too.

sure. So to answer your question, lets start with the voter turnout in those cities:

St. Louis, MO (DNC rule 76 years): 29%

Baltimore, MD (DNC rule 56 years): 58%

New Orleans, LA (DNC rule 153 years): 29%

Detroit, MI (DNC rule 63 years): 17%

Cleveland, OH (DNC rule 35 years): 29%

Las Vegas, NV (DNC rule 82 years): ?? %

Kansas City, MO (DNC rule 34 years): 19%

Memphis, TN (DNC rule 53 years.): 23%

Newark, NJ (DNC rule 72 years.): 12%

Chicago, IL (DNC rule 94 years.): 35%

Cincinnati, OH ( DNC rule 41 years): 19%

Philadelphia, PA ( DNC rule 74 years): 18%

Milwaukee, WI ( DNC rule 65 years): 31%

Tulsa, OK (outlier): 26%

Pittsburgh, PA (DNC rule 91 years): 30%

Indianapolis, IN ( DNC rule 9 years.): 27%

Louisville, KY (DNC rule 56 years): ??%

Oakland, CA (DNC rule 48 years): 36%

Washington, D.C. ( DNC rule 64 years): ??%

Atlanta, GA (DNC rule 164 years): 25%

(for mayoral elections)

You're just shoving data around thinking it proves a point. What point do you think that it proves?

Alright, so tax volume is an accurate measure for who is a more worthy voter, but not how many urbanites care enough for democracy to even show up to a ballot box?

Multi-generational city rule and less than a third of voters showing up are not even abysmal data points – it's a gotham-style dystopia.

A lot of those cities are in the black belt where the red states they are in actively practice voter suppression, eg by making inner city voters wait in long lines without access to water. You can’t just blame the voters for not showing up when the state you are in is actively against them voting.

There are no major cities run by the republicans. The closest we get is Jacksonville (which is a county with some urban area) and Mesa (a suburb of phoenix)… and does anyone really want to live in Jacksonville or Mesa?

Maybe occasionally a Republican will slip in as mayor of San Diego or Miami, but 90% of the time even those cities are run by democrats.

> and does anyone really want to live in Jacksonville or Mesa?

So those people count less because they vote for the wrong guy?

Some apparently believe that because "cities are run by _democrats_" 164 years in charge is not a problem in itself. 164 years of continious ruling over a city, but of course the other side is the currupt threat to democracy. The mental gymnastics involved are olympic.

My point was that neither Mesa nor Jacksonville are seen as great places to live, and you aren’t going to convince HN that they should vote like these cities do so that their own more appealing cities can be more like those less appealing cities.

There simply aren’t many examples of what America’s economically vibrant cities would be like if the other side was in charge, but maybe vibrancy is just not compatible with conservative ideology, and the stick to the suburbs, small towns, and rural areas because they are more…conservative (places elect leaders that mesh with their values).

rule?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com