Victims of gang-related homicides (total number of homicide victims; number of homicide victims - unknown gang-relation; number of homicide victims - known gang relation; number of gang-related homicide victims; percentage of gang-related homicide victims; rate (per 100,000 population) of gang-related homicide victims), Canada and regions, 1999 to 2024.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 7:11 AM EASTERN ON DEC. 1

OVERVIEW

2019 had the most mass killings since at least the 1970s, according to the Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings Database.

In all, there were 45 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings . This summer was especially violent, with three high-profile public mass shootings occurring in the span of just four weeks, leaving 38 killed and 66 injured.

A total of 229 people died in mass killings in 2019.

The AP's analysis found that more than 50% of the incidents were family annihilations, which is similar to prior years. Although they are far less common, the 9 public mass shootings during the year were the most deadly type of mass murder, resulting in 73 people's deaths, not including the assailants.

One-third of the offenders died at the scene of the killing or soon after, half from suicides.

About this Dataset

The Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings database tracks all U.S. homicides since 2006 involving four or more people killed (not including the offender) over a short period of time (24 hours) regardless of weapon, location, victim-offender relationship or motive. The database includes information on these and other characteristics concerning the incidents, offenders, and victims.

The AP/USA TODAY/Northeastern database represents the most complete tracking of mass murders by the above definition currently available. Other efforts, such as the Gun Violence Archive or Everytown for Gun Safety may include events that do not meet our criteria, but a review of these sites and others indicates that this database contains every event that matches the definition, including some not tracked by other organizations.

This data will be updated periodically and can be used as an ongoing resource to help cover these events.

Using this Dataset

To get basic counts of incidents of mass killings and mass shootings by year nationwide, use these queries:

Mass killings by year

Mass shootings by year

To get these counts just for your state:

Filter killings by state

Definition of "mass murder"

Mass murder is defined as the intentional killing of four or more victims by any means within a 24-hour period, excluding the deaths of unborn children and the offender(s). The standard of four or more dead was initially set by the FBI.

This definition does not exclude cases based on method (e.g., shootings only), type or motivation (e.g., public only), victim-offender relationship (e.g., strangers only), or number of locations (e.g., one). The time frame of 24 hours was chosen to eliminate conflation with spree killers, who kill multiple victims in quick succession in different locations or incidents, and to satisfy the traditional requirement of occurring in a “single incident.”

Offenders who commit mass murder during a spree (before or after committing additional homicides) are included in the database, and all victims within seven days of the mass murder are included in the victim count. Negligent homicides related to driving under the influence or accidental fires are excluded due to the lack of offender intent. Only incidents occurring within the 50 states and Washington D.C. are considered.

Methodology

Project researchers first identified potential incidents using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR). Homicide incidents in the SHR were flagged as potential mass murder cases if four or more victims were reported on the same record, and the type of death was murder or non-negligent manslaughter.

Cases were subsequently verified utilizing media accounts, court documents, academic journal articles, books, and local law enforcement records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Each data point was corroborated by multiple sources, which were compiled into a single document to assess the quality of information.

In case(s) of contradiction among sources, official law enforcement or court records were used, when available, followed by the most recent media or academic source.

Case information was subsequently compared with every other known mass murder database to ensure reliability and validity. Incidents listed in the SHR that could not be independently verified were excluded from the database.

Project researchers also conducted extensive searches for incidents not reported in the SHR during the time period, utilizing internet search engines, Lexis-Nexis, and Newspapers.com. Search terms include: [number] dead, [number] killed, [number] slain, [number] murdered, [number] homicide, mass murder, mass shooting, massacre, rampage, family killing, familicide, and arson murder. Offender, victim, and location names were also directly searched when available.

This project started at USA TODAY in 2012.

Contacts

Contact AP Data Editor Justin Myers with questions, suggestions or comments about this dataset at jmyers@ap.org. The Northeastern University researcher working with AP and USA TODAY is Professor James Alan Fox, who can be reached at j.fox@northeastern.edu or 617-416-4400.

This dataset reflects reported incidents of crime (with the exception of murders where data exists for each victim) that occurred in the City of Chicago from 2001 to present, minus the most recent seven days. Data is extracted from the Chicago Police Department's CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system. In order to protect the privacy of crime victims, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. Should you have questions about this dataset, you may contact the Research & Development Division of the Chicago Police Department at 312.745.6071 or RandD@chicagopolice.org. Disclaimer: These crimes may be based upon preliminary information supplied to the Police Department by the reporting parties that have not been verified. The preliminary crime classifications may be changed at a later date based upon additional investigation and there is always the possibility of mechanical or human error. Therefore, the Chicago Police Department does not guarantee (either expressed or implied) the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information and the information should not be used for comparison purposes over time. The Chicago Police Department will not be responsible for any error or omission, or for the use of, or the results obtained from the use of this information. All data visualizations on maps should be considered approximate and attempts to derive specific addresses are strictly prohibited. The Chicago Police Department is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages that are referenced by or that reference this web page other than an official City of Chicago or Chicago Police Department web page. The user specifically acknowledges that the Chicago Police Department is not responsible for any defamatory, offensive, misleading, or illegal conduct of other users, links, or third parties and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user. The unauthorized use of the words "Chicago Police Department," "Chicago Police," or any colorable imitation of these words or the unauthorized use of the Chicago Police Department logo is unlawful. This web page does not, in any way, authorize such use. Data is updated daily Tuesday through Sunday. The dataset contains more than 65,000 records/rows of data and cannot be viewed in full in Microsoft Excel. Therefore, when downloading the file, select CSV from the Export menu. Open the file in an ASCII text editor, such as Wordpad, to view and search. To access a list of Chicago Police Department - Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting (IUCR) codes, go to http://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Chicago-Police-Department-Illinois-Uniform-Crime-R/c7ck-438e

Number, rate and percentage changes in rates of homicide victims, Canada, provinces and territories, 1961 to 2024.

This project's main goal was to develop an analytical framework that could be used for analysis of rare crimes observed at local (intra-city) levels of geographic aggregation. To demonstrate the application of this framework to a real-world issue, this project analyzed the occurrence of different types of homicide at both the census tract and neighborhood cluster level in Chicago. Homicide counts for Chicago's 865 census tracts for 1989-1991 were obtained from HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO, 1965-1995 (ICPSR 6399), Part 1: Victim Level Data. The types of homicide examined were gang-related, instrumental, family-related expressive, known person expressive, stranger expressive, and other. Demographic and socioeconomic data at the census tract level for the year 1990 were obtained from the Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) at the Urban Institute. Part 1 contains these data, as initially obtained, at the census tract level. Part 2 contains an aggregated version of the same data for Chicago's 343 neighborhood clusters as defined by the Project on Human Development in Chicago's Neighborhoods.

As a contribution to nationwide efforts to more thoroughly understand urban violence, this study was conducted to assess the impact of cultural dynamics on homicide rates in Houston, Texas, and to profile homicides in the city from 1985 to 1994. This data collection provides the results of quantitative analysis of data collected from all Houston homicide cases recorded in the police murder logs for 1985-1994. Variables describe the homicide circumstances, the victim-offender relationship, the type of weapon used, and any drug- or gang-related activity involved. Other variables include the year and month in which the homicide occurred, whether the homicide occurred on a weekday or over the weekend, the motive of the homicide, whether the homicide was drug-related, whether the case was cleared by police at time of data entry, weapon type and means of killing, the relationship between the victim and the offender, whether a firearm was the homicide method, whether it was a multiple victim incident or multiple offender incident, whether the victim or the offender was younger than age 15, and the inter-racial relationship between the victim and the offender. Demographic variables include age, sex, and race of the victim as well as the offender.

Part 1 crimes, as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), are:

Criminal Homicide Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Theft Grand Theft Auto Arson

Part 2 crimes, as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), are:

Forgery Fraud And NSF Checks Sex Offenses Felonies Sex Offenses Misdemeanors Non-Aggravated Assaults Weapon Laws Offenses Against Family Narcotics Liquor Laws Drunk / Alcohol / Drugs Disorderly Conduct Vagrancy Gambling Drunk Driving Vehicle / Boat Vehicle / Boating Laws Vandalism Warrants Receiving Stolen Property Federal Offenses without Money Federal Offenses with Money Felonies Miscellaneous Misdemeanors Miscellaneous

Note About Date Fields:By default, the cloud database assumes all date fields are provided in UTC time zone. As a result, the system attempts to convert to the local time zone in your browser resulting in dates that appear differently than the source file. For example, a user viewing the data in PST will see times that are 8 hours behind. For an example of how dates are displayed, see the example below: Source & Download File Online Database Table Display (Example for PST User)

3/18/2023 8:07:00 AM PST 3/18/2023 8:07:00 AM UTC 3/18/2023 12:07:00 AM DATA DICTIONARY:

Field Name
Field Description


LURN_SAK
System assigned number for the case


Incident Date
Date the crime incident occurred


Incident Reported Date
Date the crime was reported to LASD


Category
Incident crime category


Stat Code
A three digit numerical coding system to identify the primary crime category for an incident


Stat Code Desc
The definition of the statistical code number


Address
The street number, street name, state and zip where the incident occurred


Street
The street number and street name where the incident occurred


City
The city where the incident occurred


Zip
The zip code of the location where the incident occurred


Incident ID
The URN #, or Uniform Report Number, is a unique # assigned to every criminal and noncriminal incident


Reporting District
A geographical area defined by LASD which is within a city or unincorporated area where the incident occurred


Sequential (per Station)
Each incident for each station is issued a unique sequence # within a given year


Gang Related
Indicates if the crime incident was gang related


Unit ID
ORI # is a number issued by the FBI for every law enforcement agency


Unit Name
Station Name


Longitude
Longitude (as plotted on the nearest half block street segment)


Latitude
Latitude (as plotted on the nearest half block street segment)


Part Category
Part I Crime or Part II Crime indicator

Abstract (en): The research team collected data on homicide, robbery, and assault offending from 1984-2006 for youth 13 to 24 years of age in 91 of the 100 largest cities in the United States (based on the 1980 Census) from various existing data sources. Data on youth homicide perpetration were acquired from the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) and data on nonlethal youth violence (robbery and assault) were obtained from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). Annual homicide, robbery, and assault arrest rates per 100,000 age-specific populations (i.e., 13 to 17 and 18 to 24 year olds) were calculated by year for each city in the study. Data on city characteristics were derived from several sources including the County and City Data Books, SHR, and the Vital Statistics Multiple Cause of Death File. The research team constructed a dataset representing lethal and nonlethal offending at the city level for 91 cities over the 23-year period from 1984 to 2006, resulting in 2,093 city year observations. The purpose of this study was to estimate temporal trends in youth violence rates variation across 91 of the 100 largest cities in the United States from 1984-2006, and to model city-specific explanatory predictors influencing these trends. In order to estimate trends in homicide offending for youth 13 to 24 years of age in 91 of the 100 largest cities in the United States from 1984-2006, data for youth homicide were acquired from the Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR), a component of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR). Measures of youth arrests for the nonlethal violent crimes of robbery and assault were acquired from UCR city arrest data for the same time period. Annual homicide, robbery, and assault arrest rates per 100,000 age-specific (i.e., 13 to 17 and 18 to 24 year olds) population were calculated by year for each city in the study. Annual homicide rates were calculated through a conventional procedure: annual incidents in a specific city, divided by the age-specific population of that city, multiplied by 100,000. Partial reporting during the time period resulted in dropping 9 cities from the homicide data and 10 cities from the robbery and assault data. Data on city-level characteristics including measures of structural disadvantage, drug market activities, gang presence-activity, and firearm availability were derived from the County and City Data Books, SHR, and the Vital Statistics Multiple Cause of Death File, respectively. Missing data came from two sources; failure to report in homicide and some of the Census collections, and lack of data for specific years, mainly in Census data, between major data collection points like the Decennial Census and the Mid-decade estimates from Census related sources. Missing data in the homicide measures were addressed using an Iterative Chain equation procedure to conduct Multiple Imputation. Variables from the original source used in the multiple imputation procedure included age of victim, race, ethnicity, gender, seven available measures of homicide circumstances, and city population size. Extrapolation methods were used to adjust for missing data in the robberies and assaults by age, and in the census and economic data sources. To estimate a missing year between two reported values, the missing year was estimated to be mid-way between the two observed years on either side of the missing year. Longer gaps involved further averaging and allocating according to the number of years missing; these estimates amount to maximum likelihood estimates of the missing years or in the case of the robberies and assaults, months as well. The study contains a total of 39 variables including city name, year, crime rate variables, and city characteristics variables. Crime rate variables include imputed and non-imputed homicide rate variables for juveniles aged 13 to 17, young adults aged 18 to 24, and adults aged 25 and over. Other crime variables include the number of imputed and non-imputed homicides as well as the robbery rate and assault rate for juveniles and young adults. City characteristics variables include population, poverty rates, percentage of African Americans, percentage of female-headed households, percentage of residents unemployed, percentage of residents receiving public assistance, home-ownership rates, gang presence and activity, and alcohol outlet density. None. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of dis...

Police-reported organized crime, by most serious violation (homicide and attempted murder, assault, sexual violations, kidnapping and hostage taking, human trafficking, robbery and theft, firearm and weapons violations, extortion and criminal harassment, arson, forgery and fraud, child pornography, criminal organization involvement, probation and court violations, drug possession and trafficking, and other violations), Canada (selected police services), 2016 to 2024.

In response to several high profile, violent crimes by minority males, which were reported by law enforcement officials as being gang-related, Nevada lawmakers enacted an array of anti-gang legislation, much of it drafted by law enforcement personnel. This study attempted to provide answers to the following research questions: (1) How often and under what specific conditions were the various anti-gang statutes used in the prosecution of gang members? (2) How had the passage of anti-gang statutes and the development of the gang prosecution units influenced the use of more conventional charging practices related to gang cases? and (3) Did specialized gang prosecution produce higher rates of convictions, more prison sentences, and longer prison terms for gang offenders? Court monitoring data were collected from both Clark and Washoe counties to document the actual extent and nature of gang crime in both jurisdictions over several years. Variables include the year of the court case, whether the defendant was a gang member, total number of initial charges, whether all charges were dismissed before trial, whether the defendant was convicted of any charge, the length of the prison sentence imposed, whether the defendant was charged with a gang enhancement statute, and whether the defendant was charged with murder, sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, auto theft, larceny, a drug offense, a weapon offense, or assault. Demographic variables include the race, sex, and age of the defendant.

Context

This dataset contains data from 2010 to 2019 about various criminal activities in Bangladesh.

Content

The data represents different criminal activities and which unit took the case.

• Unit_Name: Police Unit from a different region

• Dacoity: The number of violent robberies by an armed gang that year under a specific police unit.

• Robber: The number of robberies that took place that year under a specific police unit.

• Murder: The number of murders that took place that year under a specific police unit.

• Speedy Trial: The number of criminal trials held after a minimal delay that year under a specific police unit.

• Riot: The number of riots that took place that year under a specific police unit.

• Women&Children_Represion: The number of women or children who faced domestic violence that year under a specific police unit.

• Kidnapping: The number of kidnappings that took place that year under a specific police unit.

• Police_Assult: The number of kidnappings that took place that year under a specific police unit.

• Burglary

• Theft

• Other_cases

• Arms_act

• Explosive_act

• Narcotic_act

• Smuggling

• Tot(arm+exp+nar+smu)

• Total

What's inside is more than just rows and columns. Make it easy for others to get started by describing how you acquired the data and what time period it represents, too.

Acknowledgements

We wouldn't be here without the help of others. If you owe any attributions or thanks, include them here along with any citations of past research.

Inspiration

Your data will be in front of the world's largest data science community. What questions do you want to see answered?n

This dataset provides year and section wise information on cases registered under various provisions of law related to rape in India. It categorises rape offences based on the nature of the act and the relationship or authority of the offender, including custodial rapes (by police personnel, public servants, armed forces, or staff of hospitals, jails, and remand homes) and noncustodial rapes (by relatives, guardians, teachers, persons in positions of trust, or control). It also includes specific offences such as rape or gang rape of minor girls below 12 or 16 years of age, rape on pregnant women, rape on women with physical or mental disabilities, rape endangering life, and repeated rape on the same woman. The dataset further records legal distinctions related to punishment provisions, such as those prescribing imprisonment up to 20 years, life imprisonment, or enhanced punishment for repeat offenders and cases resulting in the victim’s death.

This study addressed questions related to potential geographic and racial disparity in the investigation and prosecution of federal capital cases and examined the process by which criminal cases, specially homicide cases, enter the federal criminal justice system. The primary method of data collection used was face-to-face interviews of key criminal justice officials within each district included in the study. Between 2000 and 2004, the researchers visited nine federal districts and interviewed all actors in the state and federal criminal justice systems who potentially would play a role in determining whether a homicide case was investigated and prosecuted in the state or federal systems. The study focused on homicide cases because federal homicides represented the offense of conviction in all capital case convictions in the federal system under the 2000 and 2001 DOJ reports (see U.S. Department of Justice, "The Federal Death Penalty System: A Statistical Survey (1988-2000)," Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September 12, 2000, and U.S. Department of Justice, "The Federal Death Penalty System: Supplementary Data, Analysis and Revised Protocols for Capital Case Review," Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, June 6, 2001). In addition, federally related homicides are frequently involved with drug, gang, and/or organized crime investigations. Using 11 standardized interview protocols, developed in consultation with members of the project's advisory group, research staff interviewed local investigative agencies (police chief or his/her representative, section heads for homicide, drug, gang, or organized crime units as applicable to the agency structure), federal investigative agencies (Special Agent-in-Charge or designee, section heads of relevant units), local prosecutors (District Attorney, Assistant District Attorney, including the line attorneys and section heads), and defense attorneys who practiced in federal court. Due to the extensive number of issues to be covered with the U.S. Attorneys' Offices, interviews were conducted with: (1) the U.S. Attorney or designated representative, (2) section heads, and (3) Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) within the respective sections. Because the U.S. Attorneys were appointed following the change in the U.S. Presidency in 2000, a slightly altered U.S. Attorney questionnaire was designed for interviews with the former U.S. Attorney who was in office during the study period of 1995 through 2000. In some instances, because the project focus was on issues and processes from 1995 through 2000, a second individual with longer tenure was chosen to be interviewed simultaneously when the head or section head was newer to the position. In some instances when a key respondent was unavailable during the site visit and no acceptable alternative could be identified, arrangements were made to complete the interview by telephone after the visit. The interviews included questions related to the nature of the local crime problem, agency crime priorities, perceived benefits of the federal over the local process, local and federal resources, nature and target of joint task forces, relationships between and among agencies, policy and agreements, definitions and understanding of federal jurisdiction, federal investigative strategies, case flow, and attitudes toward the death penalty.