In 2023, the state with the highest crime rate in the United States per 100,000 inhabitants was New Mexico. That year, the crime rate was ******** crimes per 100,000 people. In comparison, New Hampshire had the lowest crime rate at ****** crimes per 100,000 people. Crime rate The crime rate in the United States has generally decreased over time. There are several factors attributed to the decrease in the crime rate across the United States. An increase in the number of police officers and an increase in income are some of the reasons for a decrease in the crime rate. Unfortunately, people of color have been disproportionately affected by crime rates, as they are more likely to be arrested for a crime versus a white person. Crime rates regionally The District of Columbia had the highest rate of reported violent crimes in the United States in 2023 per 100,000 inhabitants. The most common crime clearance type in metropolitan counties in the United States in 2020 was murder and non-negligent manslaughter. The second most dangerous city in the country in 2020 was Detroit. Detroit has faced severe levels of economic and demographic declines in the past years. Not only has the population decreased, the city has filed for bankruptcy. Despite the median household income increasing, the city still struggles financially.

This collection contains electronic versions of the Uniform Crime Reports publications for the early years of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program in the United States. The reports, which were published monthly from 1930 to 1931, quarterly from 1932 to 1940, and annually from 1941 to 1959, consist of tables showing the number of offenses known to the police as reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by contributing police departments. The term "offenses known to the police" includes those crimes designated as Part I classes of the Uniform Classification code occurring within the police jurisdiction, whether they became known to the police through reports of police officers, citizens, prosecuting or court officials, or otherwise. They were confined to the following group of seven classes of grave offenses, historically those offenses most often and most completely reported to the police: felonious homicide, including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, and manslaughter by negligence, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary -- breaking and entering, and larceny -- theft (including thefts $50 and over, and thefts under $50, and auto theft). The figures also included the number of attempted crimes in the designated classes excepting attempted murders classed as aggravated assaults. In other words, an attempted burglary or robbery, for example, was reported in the same manner as if the crimes had been completed. "Offenses known to the police" included, therefore, all of the above offenses, including attempts, which were reported by the police departments and not merely arrests or cleared cases.

In 2023, the violent crime rate in the United States was 363.8 cases per 100,000 of the population. Even though the violent crime rate has been decreasing since 1990, the United States tops the ranking of countries with the most prisoners. In addition, due to the FBI's transition to a new crime reporting system in which law enforcement agencies voluntarily submit crime reports, data may not accurately reflect the total number of crimes committed in recent years. Reported violent crime rate in the United States The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation tracks the rate of reported violent crimes per 100,000 U.S. inhabitants. In the timeline above, rates are shown starting in 1990. The rate of reported violent crime has fallen since a high of 758.20 reported crimes in 1991 to a low of 363.6 reported violent crimes in 2014. In 2023, there were around 1.22 million violent crimes reported to the FBI in the United States. This number can be compared to the total number of property crimes, roughly 6.41 million that year. Of violent crimes in 2023, aggravated assaults were the most common offenses in the United States, while homicide offenses were the least common. Law enforcement officers and crime clearance Though the violent crime rate was down in 2013, the number of law enforcement officers also fell. Between 2005 and 2009, the number of law enforcement officers in the United States rose from around 673,100 to 708,800. However, since 2009, the number of officers fell to a low of 626,900 officers in 2013. The number of law enforcement officers has since grown, reaching 720,652 in 2023. In 2023, the crime clearance rate in the U.S. was highest for murder and non-negligent manslaughter charges, with around 57.8 percent of murders being solved by investigators and a suspect being charged with the crime. Additionally, roughly 46.1 percent of aggravated assaults were cleared in that year. A statistics report on violent crime in the U.S. can be found here.

In 2023, the District of Columbia had the highest reported violent crime rate in the United States, with 1,150.9 violent crimes per 100,000 of the population. Maine had the lowest reported violent crime rate, with 102.5 offenses per 100,000 of the population. Life in the District The District of Columbia has seen a fluctuating population over the past few decades. Its population decreased throughout the 1990s, when its crime rate was at its peak, but has been steadily recovering since then. While unemployment in the District has also been falling, it still has had a high poverty rate in recent years. The gentrification of certain areas within Washington, D.C. over the past few years has made the contrast between rich and poor even greater and is also pushing crime out into the Maryland and Virginia suburbs around the District. Law enforcement in the U.S. Crime in the U.S. is trending downwards compared to years past, despite Americans feeling that crime is a problem in their country. In addition, the number of full-time law enforcement officers in the U.S. has increased recently, who, in keeping with the lower rate of crime, have also made fewer arrests than in years past.

Summary (SRS) Data with Estimates

This dataset contains estimated data at the state and national level and was derived from the Summary Reporting System (SRS). These data reflect the estimates the FBI has traditionally included in its annual publications. Download this dataset to see the FBI's estimated crime totals for the nation and all 50 states.

As of 2023, there were ** U.S. states with laws requiring law enforcement training pertaining to hate crimes. Among these, ** included crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The majority of states did not have any mandated hate crime training for law enforcement.

These data were prepared in conjunction with a project using Bureau of Labor Statistics data (not provided with this collection) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data to examine the relationship between unemployment and violent crime. Three separate time-series data files were created as part of this project: a national time series (Part 1), a state time series (Part 2), and a time series of data for 12 selected cities: Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, New York City, Paterson (New Jersey), and Philadelphia (Part 3). Each data file was constructed to include 82 monthly time series: 26 series containing the number of Part I (crime index) offenses known to police (excluding arson) by weapon used, 26 series of the number of offenses cleared by arrest or other exceptional means by weapon used in the offense, 26 series of the number of offenses cleared by arrest or other exceptional means for persons under 18 years of age by weapon used in the offense, a population estimate series, and three date indicator series. For the national and state data, agencies from the 50 states and Washington, DC, were included in the aggregated data file if they reported at least one month of information during the year. In addition, agencies that did not report their own data (and thus had no monthly observations on crime or arrests) were included to make the aggregated population estimate as close to Census estimates as possible. For the city time series, law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over the 12 central cities were identified and the monthly data were extracted from each UCR annual file for each of the 12 agencies. The national time-series file contains 82 time series, the state file contains 4,083 time series, and the city file contains 963 time series, each with 228 monthly observations per time series. The unit of analysis is the month of observation. Monthly crime and clearance totals are provided for homicide, negligent manslaughter, total rape, forcible rape, attempted forcible rape, total robbery, firearm robbery, knife/cutting instrument robbery, other dangerous weapon robbery, strong-arm robbery, total assault, firearm assault, knife/cutting instrument assault, other dangerous weapon assault, simple nonaggravated assault, assaults with hands/fists/feet, total burglary, burglary with forcible entry, unlawful entry-no force, attempted forcible entry, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, auto theft, truck and bus theft, other vehicle theft, and grand total of all actual offenses.

Emerging from the tradition of econometric models of deterrence and crime, this study attempts to improve estimates of how crime rates are affected by the apprehension and punishment of persons charged with criminal activity. These data are contained in two files: Part 1, State Data, consists of a panel of observations from each of the 50 states and contains information on crime rates, clearance rates, length of time served, probability of imprisonment, socioeconomic factors such as unemployment rates, population levels, and income levels, and state and local expenditures for police protection. Part 2, SMSA Data, consists of a panel of 77 SMSAs and contains information on crime rates, clearance rates, length of time served, probability of imprisonment, socioeconomic factors such as employment rates, population levels, and income levels, and taxation and expenditure information.

The graph illustrates the murder rate in the United States from 1985 to 2023. The x-axis represents the years, labeled with two-digit abbreviations from '85 to '23, while the y-axis shows the annual murder rate per 100,000 individuals. Throughout this 39-year period, the murder rate fluctuates between a high of 10.66 in 1991 and a low of 4.7 in 2014. Overall, the data reveals a significant downward trend in the murder rate from the mid-1980s, reaching its lowest point in the mid-2010s, followed by slight increases in the most recent years.

In 2023, New Mexico had the highest burglary rate in the United States. That year, they had 517.9 occurrences per 100,000 residents. Washington followed with 481 incidents per 100,000 residents. What is burglary? Burglary in the United States is considered a felony or misdemeanor. It includes trespassing and theft, and going inside a building or car with the intent to commit any crime. Even if the crime is not necessarily theft, it is still illegal. Some states consider burglary committed during the day as housebreaking, not burglary. The Bureau of Justice Statistics defines it as unlawful or forcible entry into a building. There are four types of burglary in total: completed burglary, forcible entry, unlawful entry, and attempted forcible entry. Burglary in the United States Burglary affects all 50 states in the United States, as burglary was the third most common type of property crime in the United States in 2023. California had the highest number of reported burglaries in that same year, whereas New Hampshire had the lowest number. However, the overall reported burglary rate in the United States has decreased significantly since 1990.

This compilation of data, which was gathered from a variety of federal agencies and private organizations, provides information for the United States as a whole, the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and 3,141 counties and county equivalents (defined as of April 24, 1989). Data are included for the following general areas: age, ancestry, agriculture, banking, business, construction, crime, education, elections, government, health, households, housing, labor, land area, manufactures, money income, personal income, population, poverty, retail trade, service industries, social insurance and human services, veterans, vital statistics, wholesale trade, and journey to work.

This data collection investigates the ways in which police use reports of drug-related crimes provided by residents of high drug/crime areas and how willing residents of these areas are to report such crimes to the police. Structured interviews were conducted by telephone with police representatives in most of the nation's 50 largest cities and in person with residents and police officers in high drug/crime districts in each of four major cities: Newark, Chicago, El Paso, and Philadelphia. Police department representatives were queried about the usefulness of citizen reports, reasons for citizens' reluctance to make reports, how the rate of citizen reports could be improved, and how citizen reports worked with other community crime prevention strategies. Residents were asked about their tenure in the neighborhood, attitudes toward the quality of life in the neighborhood, major social problems facing the neighborhood, and quality of city services such as police and fire protection, garbage collection, and public health services. Additional questions were asked about the amount of crime in the neighborhood, the amount of drug use and drug-related crime, and the fear of crime. Basic demographic information such as sex, race, and language in which the interview was conducted is also provided.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The qualitative Case Study data is not available as part of this data collection at this time.The purpose of the study was to examine: (1) which entities pay for sexual assault medical forensic exams (MFEs) in state and local jurisdictions throughout the United States, and the policies and practices around determining payment; (2) what services are provided in the exam process and how exams are linked to counseling, advocacy, and other services; (3) whether exams are provided to victims regardless of their reporting or intention to report the assault to the criminal justice system; (4) how MFE kits are being stored for victims who choose not to participate in the criminal justice system process; and (5) whether Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 2005 requirements are generally being met throughout the country.Researchers conducted national surveys to obtain state-level information from state Services Training Officers Prosecutors (STOP) administrators (SSAs), victim compensation fund administrators, and state-level sexual assault coalitions. Surveys were distributed to potential respondents in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and United States territories that held these state-level positions. Researchers also distributed local-level surveys though an extensive listserv maintained by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC). Researchers also conducted case studies in 19 local jurisdictions across six states were selected for case studies.Interviewees included the victim compensation fund administrator, state STOP administrator, state coalition director (or an appointed staff member) and sometimes crime lab or other state justice agency personnel, at the state level, and;law enforcement, prosecution, victim advocacy staff, and healthcare-based exam providers at the local level. Finally, researchers concluded each local jurisdiction visit with a focus group with victims of sexual assault. Data collection efforts included: a national survey of crime victim compensation fund administrators (Compensation Data, n = 26); a national survey of Services Training Officers Prosecutors (STOP) grant program administrators (SSA Data, n = 52); a national survey of state sexual assault coalitions (Coalitions Data, n = 47); and a survey of local community-based victim service providers (Local Provider Data, n = 489).

This dataset includes selected variables and cases from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports, 1958-1969, and the County and City Data Books for 1962, 1967, and 1972. Data are reported for all United States cities with a population of 75,000 or more in 1960. Data from the Uniform Crime Reports include for each year the number of homicides, forcible rapes, robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries, larcenies over 50 dollars, and auto thefts. Also included is the Total Crime Index, which is the simple sum of all the crimes listed above. Selected variables describing population characteristics and city finances were taken from the 1962, 1967, and 1972 County and City Data Books.

Prison Inmates in India

Demographics, Age, Education, Caste, Wages, Rehabilitation, Technical Info

By Rajanand Ilangovan [source]

About this dataset

This dataset provides a detailed view of prison inmates in India, including their age, caste, and educational background. It includes information on inmates from all states/union territories for the year 2019 such as the number of male and female inmates aged 16-18 years, 18-30 year old inmates and those above 50 years old. The data also covers total number of penalized prisoners sentenced to death sentence, life imprisonment or executed by the state authorities. Additionally, it provides information regarding the crimehead (type) committed by an inmate along with its grand total across different age groups. This dataset not only sheds light on India’s criminal justice system but also highlights prevelance of crimes in different states and union territories as well as providing insight into crime trends across Indian states over time

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset provides a comprehensive look at the demographics, crimes and sentences of Indian prison inmates in 2019. The data is broken down by state/union territory, year, crime head, age groups and gender.

This dataset can be used to understand the demographic composition of the prison population in India as well as the types of crimes committed. It can also be used to gain insight into any changes or trends related to sentencing patterns in India over time. Furthermore, this data can provide valuable insight into potential correlations between different demographic factors (such as gender and caste) and specific types of crimes or length of sentences handed out.

To use this dataset effectively there are a few important things to keep in mind: •State/UT - This column refers to individual states or union territories in India where prisons are located •Year – This column indicates which year(s) the data relates to •Both genders - Female columns refer only to female prisoners while male columns refers only to male prisoners •Age Groups – 16-18 years old = 21-30 years old = 31-50 years old = 50+ years old •Crime Head – A broad definition for each type of crime that inmates have been convicted for •No Capital Punishment – The total number sentenced with capital punishment No Life Imprisonment – The total number sentenced with life imprisonment No Executed– The total number executed from death sentence Grand Total–The overall totals for each category

By using this information it is possible to answer questions regarding topics such as sentencing trends, types of crimes committed by different age groups or genders and state-by-state variation amongst other potential queries

Research Ideas

• Using the age and gender information to develop targeted outreach strategies for prisons in order to reduce recidivism rates.
• Creating an AI-based predictive model to predict crime trends by analyzing crime head data from a particular region/state and correlating it with population demographics, economic activity, etc.
• Analyzing the caste of inmates across different states in India in order to understand patterns of discrimination within the criminal justice system

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) - You are free to: - Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. - Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. - You must: - Give appropriate credit - Provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. - ShareAlike - You must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Columns

File: SLL_Crime_headwise_distribution_of_inmates_who_convicted.csv | Column name | Description | |:--------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | STATE/UT | Name of the state or union territory where the jail is located. (String) | | YEAR | Year when the inmate population data was collected. (Integer) ...

The 2014 Survey of State Attorneys General (SAG) collected information on jurisdiction, sources and circumstances of case referrals, and the participation of attorneys general offices in federal or state white-collar crime task forces in 2014. White-collar crime was defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) as: "any violation of law committed through non-violent means, involving lies, omissions, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of a position of trust, by an individual or organization for personal or organizational benefit." SAG sought to analyze how attorneys general offices as an organization in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories respond to white-collar offenses in their jurisdiction. BJS asked respondents to focus on the following criminal and civil offenses: bank fraud, consumer fraud, insurance fraud, medical fraud, securities fraud, tax fraud, environmental offenses, false claims and statements, illegal payments to governmental officials (giving or receiving), unfair trade practices, and workplace-related offenses (e.g., unsafe working conditions). Variables included whether or not offices handled criminal or civil cases in the above categories, estimated number of cases in each category, and what types of criminal or civil sanctions were imposed on white-collar offenders. Researchers also assessed collaboration with partners outside of state attorneys offices, whether cases were referred for federal or local prosecution, and what circumstances lead to referring cases to state regulatory agencies. The extent to which state attorneys offices maintain white-collar crime data was also recorded.

The dataset contains outcome variables, control variables, and policy variables. The outcome variables pertain to the change and growth in state-level incarceration rates between 1975 and 2002. Control variables include violent crime rate, property crime rate, percent population between ages of 18-24, percent population between ages of 25-34, percent population African American, percent population of Hispanic origin, percent population living in urban areas, percent adherents to "fundamentalist" religion, income per capita, unemployment rate, percent population below poverty level, GINI income distribution coefficient, state revenues per 100,000 residents, public welfare per 100,000 residents, police officers per 100,000 residents, drug arrest rate, corrections expenditures per 100,000 residents, citizen political ideology, government political ideology, governor's party affiliation, and region. Policy variables capture information regarding sentencing structure, drug policy, time served requirements, habitual offender laws (HOL), and mandatory sentences. Specifically, sentencing structure variables include information on determinate sentencing, structured sentencing, presumptive sentencing guidelines, voluntary sentencing guidelines, and presumptive sentencing. Drug policy variables include sentencing enhancement score (cocaine, heroin, and marijuana), severity levels for possession and sale (cocaine, heroin, and marijuana), minimum sentence for 28 grams of cocaine (sale), maximum sentence for the lowest quantity of cocaine (possession), minimum sentence for 28 grams of heroin (sale), maximum sentence for the lowest quantity of heroin (possession), minimum sentence for 500 grams of marijuana (sale), and minimum sentence for the lowest quantity of marijuana (possession). Variables regarding time served requirements include both time served (all offenses) and time served (violent offenses). The habitual offender laws variables capture information regarding the two-strikes law, three-strikes law, HOL targeted for violent offenses, and HOL targeted for drug offenses. Lastly, variables pertaining to mandatory sentences include number of mandatory minimums for weapons use, number of mandatory minimums for violent offenses, number of mandatory minimums for offenses against protected individuals, number of mandatory minimums for offenses committed while in state custody, and mandatory score. The study consisted of two phases completed between November 2002 and March 2004. The first phase of the research involved building a framework for understanding the types of state-level sentencing and corrections policies in use between 1975 and 2002. To do this, researchers reviewed prior analyses of policies to construct an initial outline of policies or general areas and their characteristics. Next, members of the Vera Institute of Justice's National Associates Program on State Sentencing and Corrections (SSC) reviewed the outline, suggested minor changes in the characteristics detailed, and constructed an initial data collection instrument (DCI). This initial DCI microdatabase was pilot-tested by collecting data on three states, refined, and then a finalized version of the DCI was developed for use in the second stage of the study. Phase two of the project consisted of state-level data collection for all 50 states for all study years, 1975 to 2002. The year 1975 was chosen as the cut-off year since, according to most criminologists and practitioners, most of the dramatic changes in state-level sentencing and corrections policies have occurred post-1975. The principal investigators and six research assistants began by analyzing microfiche versions of state codes as amended in 1975. Microfiche versions of superseded state codes (including supplements) and state sessions laws were then used to collect data on changes to each state's code for each year between 1975 and 2002. Data collection generally involved reading the entire criminal law and criminal procedure sections of each state's 1975 code, locating the relevant policy, and recording information about the provisions of the policy into the DCI. Annual code supplements were then analyzed to note changes to each state's code. When a revised version of the entire code was published, data collection then involved reviewing the entire criminal law and criminal procedure sections of each state's code again. Where changes to policies were unclear from annual supplements, microfiche versions of state sessions laws were consulted, which provided the actual legislation altering the code. This process continued until data collection reached 2002, and analysis turned to the bound versions of state codes as amended in 2002. In order to assess the impacts of state-level sentencing and corrections policies in the United States implemented between 1975 and 2002 on state incarceration rates during that same time period, researchers conducted a two-phase study between November 2002 a...

Drawing on information from several sources, this dataset provides cross-sectional time-series data on homicide victimization and offending counts and rates for the United States and each of the 50 states for the years 1976-1999, disaggregated by age, sex, and race. Specifically, data from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) were used to assemble victim and offender counts for various demographic groups, and U.S. Bureau of the Census estimates for population by age, race, and sex were employed to transform these counts into rates per 100,000. In addition, because the SHR program fails to provide a complete count of homicides, national and state estimates, published in the FBI's annual publication CRIME IN THE UNITES STATES, were used to benchmark and adjust SHR homicide counts. To ensure consistency between these rates and those published by the FBI, population data were also adjusted to match the population totals used in the FBI's publication.

This study was undertaken to obtain information on the characteristics of gun ownership, gun-carrying practices, and weapons-related incidents in the United States -- specifically, gun use and other weapons used in self-defense against humans and animals. Data were gathered using a national random-digit-dial telephone survey. The respondents were comprised of 1,905 randomly-selected adults aged 18 and older living in the 50 United States. All interviews were completed between May 28 and July 2, 1996. The sample was designed to be a representative sample of households, not of individuals, so researchers did not interview more than one adult from each household. To start the interview, six qualifying questions were asked, dealing with (1) gun ownership, (2) gun-carrying practices, (3) gun display against the respondent, (4) gun use in self-defense against animals, (5) gun use in self-defense against people, and (6) other weapons used in self-defense. A "yes" response to a qualifying question led to a series of additional questions on the same topic as the qualifying question. Part 1, Survey Data, contains the coded data obtained during the interviews, and Part 2, Open-Ended-Verbatim Responses, consists of the answers to open-ended questions provided by the respondents. Information collected for Part 1 covers how many firearms were owned by household members, types of firearms owned (handguns, revolvers, pistols, fully automatic weapons, and assault weapons), whether the respondent personally owned a gun, reasons for owning a gun, type of gun carried, whether the gun was ever kept loaded, kept concealed, used for personal protection, or used for work, and whether the respondent had a permit to carry the gun. Additional questions focused on incidents in which a gun was displayed in a hostile manner against the respondent, including the number of times such an incident took place, the location of the event in which the gun was displayed against the respondent, whether the police were contacted, whether the individual displaying the gun was known to the respondent, whether the incident was a burglary, robbery, or other planned assault, and the number of shots fired during the incident. Variables concerning gun use by the respondent in self-defense against an animal include the number of times the respondent used a gun in this manner and whether the respondent was hunting at the time of the incident. Other variables in Part 1 deal with gun use in self-defense against people, such as the location of the event, if the other individual knew the respondent had a gun, the type of gun used, any injuries to the respondent or to the individual that required medical attention or hospitalization, whether the incident was reported to the police, whether there were any arrests, whether other weapons were used in self-defense, the type of other weapon used, location of the incident in which the other weapon was used, and whether the respondent was working as a police officer or security guard or was in the military at the time of the event. Demographic variables in Part 1 include the gender, race, age, household income, and type of community (city, suburb, or rural) in which the respondent lived. Open-ended questions asked during the interview comprise the variables in Part 2. Responses include descriptions of where the respondent was when he or she displayed a gun (in self-defense or otherwise), specific reasons why the respondent displayed a gun, how the other individual reacted when the respondent displayed the gun, how the individual knew the respondent had a gun, whether the police were contacted for specific self-defense events, and if not, why not.

In 2023, the nationwide rate of property crime in the United States was 1,916.7 cases per 100,000 of the population. This is a slight decrease from the previous year, when the rate of property crimes stood at 1,973.8 cases per 100,000 of the population.