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.

The current study focused on 479 men and women from South Carolina who were enrolled as participants in the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) multi-site program evaluation shortly before prison release in 2004 or 2005. The original SVORI data suggested that the South Carolina respondents were similar to the multi-site sample with "committed to not going back to prison" as the most common reason for desisting and using drugs or alcohol as the most common reason for persisting. The goals of the current study were to (1) update information on the current status of these individuals across multiple domains (e.g., housing, employment, substance use); (2) gather additional administrative recidivism data to examine long-term offending; and (3) acquire information about the factors individuals associated with their decisions to desist from criminal activity, as well as circumstances associated with renewed criminal activity or desistence. Interviews were conducted with those that the study team were able to locate and additional administrative arrest and incarceration data were acquired for the full sample, providing recidivism follow-up over at least a 10-year period. Official administrative data were obtained from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (rearrests) and South Carolina Department of Corrections (reincarcerations). Arrest data span the entire arrest history (from first arrest through December 2015); reincarceration data span the period between the SVORI study prison release in 2005 and 2006 through June 2014. These data were obtained for the full sample of 479 South Carolina SVORI participants. Three components of interview data were collected. Desistance study interview data: 1 wave of in-person interviews was conducted with 208 study subjects who consented to participate in an interview. The research team used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) to administer the survey, and interviews were conducted from September 2016 through March 2017. Life event data: The Life Events Calendar (LEC) is a tool used in qualitative and quantitative research to gather retrospective information about a person's life, experiences, and history. The approach is based on autobiographical memory and how entering events on a calendar or page help facilitate memory recall. LECs typically encompass periods of 5 years or less; this study's LEC covered a 10- to 12-year span to allow analysis since last contact with the study cohort. Data were collected from the 208 subjects who consented to be interviewed. SVORI interview data: This inventory includes files with select baseline and outcome data (e.g., self-reported employment, drug use, criminal behavior) for desistance study subjects who responded to follow-up interviews at Wave 2 (3-month), Wave 3 (9-month), and Wave 4 (15-month). This collection of administrative and interview data is organized into 14 data parts. Demographic data includes information on age, gender, race, and education.

Graph and download economic data for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Richland County, SC (DISCONTINUED) (FBITC045079) from 2004 to 2021 about Richland County, SC; Columbia; crime; violent crime; property crime; SC; and USA.

For this study, convenience store robbery victims and offenders in five states (Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, and South Carolina) were interviewed. Robbery victims were identified by canvassing convenience stores in high-crime areas, while a sample of unrelated offenders was obtained from state prison rolls. The aims of the survey were to address questions of injury, to examine store characteristics that might influence the rate of robbery and injury, to compare how both victims and offenders perceived the robbery event (including their assessment of what could be done to prevent convenience store robberies in the future), and to identify ways in which the number of convenience store robberies might be reduced. Variables unique to Part 1, the Victim Data file, provide information on how the victim was injured, whether hospitalization was required for the injury, if the victim used any type of self-protection, and whether the victim had been trained to handle a robbery. Part 2, the Offender Data file, presents variables describing offenders' history of prior convenience store robberies, whether there had been an accomplice, motive for robbing the store, and whether various factors mattered in choosing the store to rob (e.g., cashier location, exit locations, lighting conditions, parking lot size, the number of clerks working, weather conditions, the time of day, and the number of customers in the store). Found in both files are variables detailing whether a victim injury occurred, use of a weapon, how each participant behaved, perceptions of why the store was targeted, what could have been done to prevent the robbery, and ratings by the researchers on the completeness, honesty, and cooperativeness of each participant during the interview. Demographic variables found in both the victim and offender files include age, gender, race, and ethnicity.

Graph and download economic data for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Oconee County, SC (DISCONTINUED) (FBITC045073) from 2004 to 2021 about Oconee County, SC; crime; violent crime; property crime; SC; and USA.

Graph and download economic data for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Marion County, SC (DISCONTINUED) (FBITC045067) from 2005 to 2021 about Marion County, SC; crime; violent crime; property crime; SC; and USA.

In 2023, the District of Columbia had the highest rate of murder and non-negligent manslaughter in the United States with a rate of 39 murders or non-negligent manslaughters per 100,000 inhabitants. Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, and Tennessee rounded out the top five states with the highest murder rates.

Graph and download economic data for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Jasper County, SC (DISCONTINUED) (FBITC045053) from 2005 to 2021 about Jasper County, SC; crime; violent crime; property crime; SC; and USA.

This study examined victimization in the lives of incarcerated women, specifically victimization as a risk factor for crime, with particular emphasis on the direct and indirect ways in which the impact of victimization contributed to criminal involvement. Interviews were conducted with 60 women incarcerated in a maximum security state correctional facility in South Carolina from October 2001 to August 2002. Interview measures consisted of participant responses to loosely-structured open-ended prompts and addressed each woman's own perspective on psychological, physical, and sexual victimization within her life, as well as her history of family and peer relationships, alcohol and drug use, and criminal activity. The South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) provided demographic and criminal history information for each prospective participant, including participants, no-shows, and decliners (Part 1) and for the female prison population without the prospective participants (Part 2). These data were used for sampling decisions and provide descriptive information on sample characteristics. In addition the SCDC provided inmate data on offenses committed while in the SCDC (Part 3), disciplinary actions at the SCDC (Part 4), education through the SCDC (Part 5), and known prior offenses (Part 6). The project also conducted online searches in NewsLibrary for media reports concerning women who participated in the study. Variables include age, race, number of children, marital status, criminal offense history, correctional disciplinary records, probation/parole information, victim/witness notification, corrections program participation, intelligence scores, math and reading scores, basic academic history/degrees, mental health assessment, and special medical needs.

Graph and download economic data for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Chester County, SC (DISCONTINUED) (FBITC045023) from 2005 to 2021 about Chester County, SC; crime; violent crime; property crime; SC; and USA.

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. Part I categorizes incidents in two categories: violent and property crimes. Aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery are classified as violent crime, while burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft are classified as property crimes. This dataset contains FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Part I crime data for the last 40 years in Greensboro, North Carolina.The Greensboro Police Department is comprised of 787 sworn and non-sworn employees dedicated to the mission of partnering to fight crime for a safer Greensboro. We believe that effectively fighting crime requires everyone's effort. With your assistance, we can make our city safer. Wondering what you can do?Take reasonable steps to prevent being victimized. Lock your car and home doors. Be aware of your surroundings. If something or someonefeels out of the ordinary, go to a safe place.Be additional eyes and ears for us. Report suspicious or unusual activity, and provide tips through Crime Stoppers that can help solve crime.Look out for your neighbors. Strong communities with active Neighborhood Watch programs are not attractive to criminals. By taking care of the people around you, you can create safe places to live and work.Get involved! If you have children, teach them how to react to bullying, what the dangers of texting and driving are, and how to safely use the Internet. Talk with your older relatives about scams that target senior citizens.Learn more about GPD. Ride along with us. Participate in the Police Citizens' Academy. Volunteer, apply for an internship, or better yet join us.You may have heard about our philosophy of neighborhood-oriented policing. This is practice in policing that combines data-driven crime analysis with police/citizen partnerships to solve problems.In the spirit of partnership with the community, our goal is to make the Greensboro Police Department as accessible as possible to the people we serve. Policies and procedures, referred to as directives, are rules that all Greensboro Police Department employees must follow in carrying out the mission of the department. We will update the public copy of the directives in a timely manner to remain consistent with new policy and procedure updates.

Graph and download economic data for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Laurens County, SC (DISCONTINUED) (FBITC045059) from 2004 to 2021 about Laurens County, SC; Greenville; crime; violent crime; property crime; SC; and USA.

The central purpose of this study was to provide descriptive information about hospitalized crime victims. More specifically, patients' knowledge of victim services, the legal justice system, and victims' rights were explored through their use of medical and dental services. From July 1, 1990, to June 30, 1991, the project staff obtained daily reports from the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) Admissions Office regarding new admissions to specified units. If patients granted permission, the staff member administered a Criminal Victimization Screening Schedule (CVSS) and asked permission to review the relevant portion of their medical charts. Patients were also asked if they would be willing to participate in interviews about their victimization. If so, they were given the Criminal Victimization Interview (CVI), a structured interview schedule developed for this study that included items on demographics, victim and assault characteristics, knowledge of victims' rights, and a post-traumatic stress disorder checklist. This information is contained in Part 1, Interview Data File. At the conclusion of the personal interviews, patients were referred to the Model Hospital Victim Assistance Program (MHVAP), which was developed for this project and which provided information, advocacy, crisis counseling, and post-discharge referral services to hospitalized crime victims and their families. The Follow-Up Criminal Victimization Interview (FUCVI) was administered to 30 crime victims who had participated in the study and who were successfully located 3 months after discharge from the hospital. The FUCVI included questions on health status, victim services utilization and satisfaction, and satisfaction with the criminal justice system. These data are found in Part 2, Follow-Up Data File.

This dataset contains Crime and Safety data from the Cary Police Department.

This data is extracted by the Town of Cary's Police Department's RMS application. The police incidents will provide data on the Part I crimes of arson, motor vehicle thefts, larcenies, burglaries, aggravated assaults, robberies and homicides. Sexual assaults and crimes involving juveniles will not appear to help protect the identities of victims.

This dataset includes criminal offenses in the Town of Cary for the previous 10 calendar years plus the current year. The data is based on the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) which includes all victims of person crimes and all crimes within an incident. The data is dynamic, which allows for additions, deletions and/or modifications at any time, resulting in more accurate information in the database. Due to continuous data entry, the number of records in subsequent extractions are subject to change. Crime data is updated daily however, incidents may be up to three days old before they first appear.

About Crime Data

The Cary Police Department strives to make crime data as accurate as possible, but there is no avoiding the introduction of errors into this process, which relies on data furnished by many people and that cannot always be verified. Data on this site are updated daily, adding new incidents and updating existing data with information gathered through the investigative process.

This dynamic nature of crime data means that content provided here today will probably differ from content provided a week from now. Additional, content provided on this site may differ somewhat from crime statistics published elsewhere by other media outlets, even though they draw from the same database.

Withheld Data

In accordance with legal restrictions against identifying sexual assault and child abuse victims and juvenile perpetrators, victims, and witnesses of certain crimes, this site includes the following precautionary measures: (a) Addresses of sexual assaults are not included. (b) Child abuse cases, and other crimes which by their nature involve juveniles, or which the reports indicate involve juveniles as victims, suspects, or witnesses, are not reported at all.

Certain crimes that are under current investigation may be omitted from the results in avoid comprising the investigative process.

Incidents five days old or newer may not be included until the internal audit process has been completed.

This data is updated daily.

Graph and download economic data for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Union County, SC (DISCONTINUED) (FBITC045087) from 2005 to 2020 about Union County, SC; crime; violent crime; property crime; SC; and USA.

For official crime statistics, please visit CMPD's Crime Statistics page at:https://charlottenc.gov/CMPD/Safety/Pages/CrimeStats.aspx . Includes all CMPD incident report types, both criminal and non-criminal. Many reports are taken only to fully document a non-criminal circumstance like a missing person, lost/missing property, etc. Other reports are only taken to document the recovery of vehicles stolen in other jurisdictions. Each incident is classified based on FBI NIBRS standards by applying a national crime hierarchy to choose the highest offense assigned to each report. More information about NIBRS standards can be found on the FBI website. Cases where Highest NIBRS Code / Highest NIBRS Description is non-criminal offense (codes in the 800 series) should not be included in analysis of total “criminal” incident reports. In addition, data includes incidents with any clearance status, including unfounded cases. A clearance status of “Unfounded” means the report has been investigated and determined either to be a false report or to involve circumstances that do not actually constitute a crime.

Effective October 1, 1994, the state of North Carolina implemented a new structured sentencing law that applied to all felony and misdemeanor crimes (except for driving while impaired) committed on or after October 1, 1994. Under the new structured sentencing law parole was eliminated, and a sentencing commission developed recommended ranges of punishment for offense and offender categories, set priorities for the use of correctional resources, and developed a model to estimate correctional populations. This study sought to investigate sentencing reforms by looking at the effects of structured sentencing on multiple aspects of the adjudication process in North Carolina. A further objective was to determine whether there were differences in the commission of institutional infractions between inmates sentenced to North Carolina prisons under the pre-structured versus structured sentencing laws. Researchers hoped that the results of this study may help North Carolina and jurisdictions around the country (1) anticipate the likely effects of structured sentencing laws, (2) design new laws that might better achieve the jurisdictions' goals, and (3) improve the potential of sentencing legislation in order to enhance public safety in an effective and equitable way. Administrative records data were collected from two sources. First, in order to examine the effects of structured sentencing on the adjudication process in North Carolina, criminal case data were obtained from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (Parts 1 and 2). The pre-structured sentencing and structured sentencing samples were selected at the case level, and each record in Parts 1 and 2 represents a charged offense processed in either the North Carolina Superior or District Court. Second, inmate records data were collected from administrative records provided by the North Carolina Department of Correction (Part 3). These data were used to compare the involvement in infractions of inmates sentenced under both pre-structured and structured sentencing. The data for Part 3 focused on inmates entering the prison system between June 1, 1995, and January 31, 1998. Variables for Parts 1 and 2 include type of charge, charged offense date, method of disposition (e.g., dismissal, withdrawal, jury trial), defendant's plea, verdict for the offense, and whether the offense was processed through the North Carolina Superior or District Court. Structured sentencing offense class and modified Uniform Crime Reporting code for both charged and convicted offenses are presented for Parts 1 and 2. There are also county, prosecutorial district, and defendant episode identifiers in both parts. Variables related to defendant episodes include types of offenses within episode, total number of charges and convictions, whether all charges were dismissed, whether any felony charge resulted in a jury trial, and the adjudication time for all charges. Demographic variables for Parts 1 and 2 include the defendant's age, race, and gender. Part 3 variables include the date of prison admission, sentence type, number of prior incarcerations, number of years served during prior incarcerations, maximum sentence length for current incarceration, jail credit in years, count of all infractions during current and prior incarcerations, reason for incarceration, infraction rate, the risk for alcohol and drug dependency based on alcohol and chemical dependency screening scores, and the number of assault, drug/alcohol, profanity/disobedience, work absence, and money/property infractions during an inmate's current incarceration. Demographic variables for Part 3 include race, gender, and age at the time of each inmate's prison admission.

This statistic shows the results of a survey among approximately 1,000 adult Americans on whether the June 2015 shootings in Charleston, South Carolina, during which Dylann Roof shot nine black people during bible study in a church should be regarded as a hate crime, or not. During this survey, 87 percent of respondents stated that these murders should be regarded as a hate crime.

California reported the largest number of homicides to the FBI in 2023, at 1,929 for the year. Texas recorded the second-highest number of murders, with 1,845 for the year. Homicide victim demographics There were a total of 19,252 reported homicide cases in the U.S. in 2023. When looking at murder victims by gender and ethnicity, the vast majority were male, while just over half of the victims were Black or African American. In addition, homicide victims in the United States were found most likely to be between the ages of 20 and 34 years old, with the majority of victims aged between 17 to 54 years old. Are murders up? In short, no – since the 1990s the number of murders in the U.S. has decreased significantly. In 1990, the murder rate per 100,000 people stood at 9.4, and stood at 5.7 in 2023. It should be noted though that the number of homicides increased slightly from 2014 to 2017, although figures declined again in 2018 and 2019, before ticking up once more in 2020 and 2021. Despite this decline, when viewed in international comparison, the U.S. murder rate is still notably high. For example, the Canadian homicide rate stood at 1.94 in 2023, while the homicide rate in England and Wales was even lower.

This study examined the effects of comprehensive registration and community notification policies on rates of sexual violence in South Carolina. Specifically, it proposed to (1) evaluate whether broad sex offender registration and notification policies have reduced recidivism or deterred new sexual offenses, (2) examine whether unintended effects of broad registration and notification policies occurred, and (3) focus on the effects of registration and notification as it pertained to offenses committed by adults. The study examined whether the introduction of sex offender registration and notification laws in South Carolina were associated with reductions in sexual crimes and, if so, whether this reduction could be attributed to an actual reduction in sexual violence and/or recidivism (i.e., an intended effect) or to changes in criminal judicial processing of individuals for registry crimes (i.e., an unintended effect). Specific study aims included examining whether: (1) South Carolina registration and notification policies had the intended effect of preventing first time sexual offending; (2) South Carolina registration and notification policies had the intended effect of reducing sexual recidivism for known sex offenders; and (3) South Carolina registration and notification policies had the unintended effect of reducing the probability that individuals who committed sexual crimes would be prosecuted or convicted for such crimes. In addition to these primary aims, the researchers also investigated (4) registration violations (e.g., failure to register) were associated with sexual or general recidivism.