In 2023, 8,842 murderers in the United States were white, while 6,405 were Black. A further 461 murderers were of another race, including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. However, not all law enforcement agencies submitted homicide data to the FBI in 2023, meaning there may be more murder offenders of each race than depicted. While the majority of circumstances behind murders in the U.S. are unknown, narcotics, robberies, and gang killings are most commonly identified.

In 2023, the FBI reported that there were 9,284 Black murder victims in the United States and 7,289 white murder victims. In comparison, there were 554 murder victims of unknown race and 586 victims of another race. Victims of inequality? In recent years, the role of racial inequality in violent crimes such as robberies, assaults, and homicides has gained public attention. In particular, the issue of police brutality has led to increasing attention following the murder of George Floyd, an African American who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer. Studies show that the rate of fatal police shootings for Black Americans was more than double the rate reported of other races. Crime reporting National crime data in the United States is based off the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s new crime reporting system, which requires law enforcement agencies to self-report their data in detail. Due to the recent implementation of this system, less crime data has been reported, with some states such as Delaware and Pennsylvania declining to report any data to the FBI at all in the last few years, suggesting that the Bureau's data may not fully reflect accurate information on crime in the United States.

These data examine the effects on total crime rates of changes in the demographic composition of the population and changes in criminality of specific age and race groups. The collection contains estimates from national data of annual age-by-race specific arrest rates and crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary over the 21-year period 1965-1985. The data address the following questions: (1) Are the crime rates reported by the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) data series valid indicators of national crime trends? (2) How much of the change between 1965 and 1985 in total crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary is attributable to changes in the age and race composition of the population, and how much is accounted for by changes in crime rates within age-by-race specific subgroups? (3) What are the effects of age and race on subgroup crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary? (4) What is the effect of time period on subgroup crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary? (5) What is the effect of birth cohort, particularly the effect of the very large (baby-boom) cohorts following World War II, on subgroup crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary? (6) What is the effect of interactions among age, race, time period, and cohort on subgroup crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary? (7) How do patterns of age-by-race specific crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary compare for different demographic subgroups? The variables in this study fall into four categories. The first category includes variables that define the race-age cohort of the unit of observation. The values of these variables are directly available from UCR and include year of observation (from 1965-1985), age group, and race. The second category of variables were computed using UCR data pertaining to the first category of variables. These are period, birth cohort of age group in each year, and average cohort size for each single age within each single group. The third category includes variables that describe the annual age-by-race specific arrest rates for the different crime types. These variables were estimated for race, age, group, crime type, and year using data directly available from UCR and population estimates from Census publications. The fourth category includes variables similar to the third group. Data for estimating these variables were derived from available UCR data on the total number of offenses known to the police and total arrests in combination with the age-by-race specific arrest rates for the different crime types.

Number, percentage and rate (per 100,000 population) of homicide victims, by racialized identity group (total, by racialized identity group; racialized identity group; South Asian; Chinese; Black; Filipino; Arab; Latin American; Southeast Asian; West Asian; Korean; Japanese; other racialized identity group; multiple racialized identity; racialized identity, but racialized identity group is unknown; rest of the population; unknown racialized identity group), gender (all genders; male; female; gender unknown) and region (Canada; Atlantic region; Quebec; Ontario; Prairies region; British Columbia; territories), 2019 to 2024.

In 2022, the prevalence of violent crime increased for all races in the United States in comparison to the previous year. In that year, around **** percent of White Americans experienced one or more violent victimizations and approximately **** percent of Black or African American people were the victims of a violent crime.

In the United States, Black people have higher rates of gun homicide than White people across all age groups. As of 2022, gun homicide rates were highest among Black people aged between 15 and 24 years, at ***** gun homicides per 100,000 of the population. In comparison, there were only **** gun homicides per 100,000 of the White population within this age range. However, the risk for gun homicide was greatest among all adolescents and adults between the ages of 15 to 44 in that year. The impact of guns on young Americans In the last few years, firearms have become the leading cause of death for American children and teenagers aged one to 19 years old, accounting for more deaths than car crashes and diseases. School shootings also remain on the rise recently, with the U.S. recording ** times as many school shootings than other high-income nations from 2009 to 2018. Black students in particular experience a disproportionately high number of school shootings relative to their population, and K-12 teachers at schools made up mostly of students of color are more likely to report feeling afraid that they or their students would be a victim of attack or harm. The right to bear arms Despite increasingly high rates of gun-related violence, gun ownership remains a significant part of American culture, largely due to the fact that the right to bear arms is written into the U.S. Constitution. Although firearms are the most common murder weapon used in the U.S., accounting for approximately ****** homicides in 2022, almost **** of American households have at least one firearm in their possession. Consequently, it is evident that firearms remain easily accessible nationwide, even though gun laws may vary from state to state. However, the topic of gun control still causes political controversy, as the majority of Republicans agree that it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while Democrats are more inclined to believe that it is more important to limit gun ownership.

As of 2021, Black men had the highest firearm homicide rate in the United States, with ***** homicides by firearm per 100,000 of the population. In comparison, Black women had a firearm homicide rate of **** per 100,000 of the population. In that year, the risk of gun homicide was lowest among Asian people across all genders.

African American males in the United States are much more likely to die from homicide than white males. In 2016, the death rate by homicide for African American males was ** per 100,000 population, compared to a rate of just *** per 100,000 population for white males. African American males are twice as likely to die from firearm-related injuries than white males, with handguns involved in the largest share of homicides in the U.S. Homicide as a leading cause of death While the leading causes of death for black and white residents in the U.S. are similar in many ways, there are two distinct differences. Homicide is not in the leading 10 causes of death among whites, but it is the ******* leading cause of death for blacks, accounting for around ***** percent of all deaths in this group. However, suicide is the ***** leading cause of death among whites, while it is not included in the ** leading causes of death for blacks. Death rates Overall, the death rate in the United States is higher among non-Hispanic whites than any other ethnicity. Furthermore, males across all ethnicities in the U.S. have higher death rates than females. The *** leading causes of death for every ethnicity in the U.S. are cancer and heart disease.

There has been little research on United States homicide rates from a long-term perspective, primarily because there has been no consistent data series on a particular place preceding the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which began its first full year in 1931. To fill this research gap, this project created a data series on homicides per capita for New York City that spans two centuries. The goal was to create a site-specific, individual-based data series that could be used to examine major social shifts related to homicide, such as mass immigration, urban growth, war, demographic changes, and changes in laws. Data were also gathered on various other sites, particularly in England, to allow for comparisons on important issues, such as the post-World War II wave of violence. The basic approach to the data collection was to obtain the best possible estimate of annual counts and the most complete information on individual homicides. The annual count data (Parts 1 and 3) were derived from multiple sources, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports and Supplementary Homicide Reports, as well as other official counts from the New York City Police Department and the City Inspector in the early 19th century. The data include a combined count of murder and manslaughter because charge bargaining often blurs this legal distinction. The individual-level data (Part 2) were drawn from coroners' indictments held by the New York City Municipal Archives, and from daily newspapers. Duplication was avoided by keeping a record for each victim. The estimation technique known as "capture-recapture" was used to estimate homicides not listed in either source. Part 1 variables include counts of New York City homicides, arrests, and convictions, as well as the homicide rate, race or ethnicity and gender of victims, type of weapon used, and source of data. Part 2 includes the date of the murder, the age, sex, and race of the offender and victim, and whether the case led to an arrest, trial, conviction, execution, or pardon. Part 3 contains annual homicide counts and rates for various comparison sites including Liverpool, London, Kent, Canada, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco.

BackgroundGun violence has shortened the average life expectancy of Americans, and better knowledge about the root causes of gun violence is crucial to its prevention. While some empirical evidence exists regarding the impacts of social and economic factors on violence and firearm homicide rates, to the author’s knowledge, there has yet to be a comprehensive and comparative lagged, multilevel investigation of major social determinants of health in relation to firearm homicides and mass shootings.Methods and findingsThis study used negative binomial regression models and geolocated gun homicide incident data from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, to explore and compare the independent associations of key state-, county-, and neighborhood-level social determinants of health—social mobility, social capital, income inequality, racial and economic segregation, and social spending—with neighborhood firearm-related homicides and mass shootings in the United States, accounting for relevant state firearm laws and a variety of state, county, and neighborhood (census tract [CT]) characteristics. Latitude and longitude coordinates on firearm-related deaths were previously collected by the Gun Violence Archive, and then linked by the British newspaper The Guardian to CTs according to 2010 Census geographies. The study population consisted of all 74,134 CTs as defined for the 2010 Census in the 48 states of the contiguous US. The final sample spanned 70,579 CTs, containing an estimated 314,247,908 individuals, or 98% of the total US population in 2015. The analyses were based on 13,060 firearm-related deaths in 2015, with 11,244 non-mass shootings taking place in 8,673 CTs and 141 mass shootings occurring in 138 CTs. For area-level social determinants, lag periods of 3 to 17 years were examined based on existing theory, empirical evidence, and data availability. County-level institutional social capital (levels of trust in institutions), social mobility, income inequality, and public welfare spending exhibited robust relationships with CT-level gun homicide rates and the total numbers of combined non-mass and mass shooting homicide incidents and non-mass shooting homicide incidents alone. A 1–standard deviation (SD) increase in institutional social capital was linked to a 19% reduction in the homicide rate (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.81, 95% CI 0.73–0.91, p < 0.001) and a 17% decrease in the number of firearm homicide incidents (IRR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.73–0.95, p = 0.01). Upward social mobility was related to a 25% reduction in the gun homicide rate (IRR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.66–0.86, p < 0.001) and a 24% decrease in the number of homicide incidents (IRR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.67–0.87, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, 1-SD increases in the neighborhood percentages of residents in poverty and males living alone were associated with 26%–27% and 12% higher homicide rates, respectively. Study limitations include possible residual confounding by factors at the individual/household level, and lack of disaggregation of gun homicide data by gender and race/ethnicity.ConclusionsThis study finds that the rich–poor gap, level of citizens’ trust in institutions, economic opportunity, and public welfare spending are all related to firearm homicide rates in the US. Further establishing the causal nature of these associations and modifying these social determinants may help to address the growing gun violence epidemic and reverse recent life expectancy declines among Americans.

In 1980, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to the Cornell University College of Human Ecology for the establishment of the Center for the Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California. This center mounted a long-term research project that sought to explain the wide variation in crime statistics by race and ethnicity. Using information from eight ethnic communities in Oakland, California, representing working- and middle-class Black, White, Chinese, and Hispanic groups, as well as additional data from Oakland's justice systems and local organizations, the center conducted empirical research to describe the criminalization process and to explore the relationship between race and crime. The differences in observed patterns and levels of crime were analyzed in terms of: (1) the abilities of local ethnic communities to contribute to, resist, neutralize, or otherwise affect the criminalization of its members, (2) the impacts of criminal justice policies on ethnic communities and their members, and (3) the cumulative impacts of criminal justice agency decisions on the processing of individuals in the system. Administrative records data were gathered from two sources, the Alameda County Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) (Part 1) and the Oakland District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) (Part 2). In addition to collecting administrative data, the researchers also surveyed residents (Part 3), police officers (Part 4), and public defenders and district attorneys (Part 5). The eight study areas included a middle- and low-income pair of census tracts for each of the four racial/ethnic groups: white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Part 1, Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) Data, contains information on offenders' most serious felony and misdemeanor arrests, dispositions, offense codes, bail arrangements, fines, jail terms, and pleas for both current and prior arrests in Alameda County. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status. Variables in Part 2, District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) Data, include current and prior charges, days from offense to charge, disposition, and arrest, plea agreement conditions, final results from both municipal court and superior court, sentence outcomes, date and outcome of arraignment, disposition, and sentence, number and type of enhancements, numbers of convictions, mistrials, acquittals, insanity pleas, and dismissals, and factors that determined the prison term. For Part 3, Oakland Community Crime Survey Data, researchers interviewed 1,930 Oakland residents from eight communities. Information was gathered from community residents on the quality of schools, shopping, and transportation in their neighborhoods, the neighborhood's racial composition, neighborhood problems, such as noise, abandoned buildings, and drugs, level of crime in the neighborhood, chances of being victimized, how respondents would describe certain types of criminals in terms of age, race, education, and work history, community involvement, crime prevention measures, the performance of the police, judges, and attorneys, victimization experiences, and fear of certain types of crimes. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and family status. For Part 4, Oakland Police Department Survey Data, Oakland County police officers were asked about why they joined the police force, how they perceived their role, aspects of a good and a bad police officer, why they believed crime was down, and how they would describe certain beats in terms of drug availability, crime rates, socioeconomic status, number of juveniles, potential for violence, residential versus commercial, and degree of danger. Officers were also asked about problems particular neighborhoods were experiencing, strategies for reducing crime, difficulties in doing police work well, and work conditions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, level of education, and years on the force. In Part 5, Public Defender/District Attorney Survey Data, public defenders and district attorneys were queried regarding which offenses were increasing most rapidly in Oakland, and they were asked to rank certain offenses in terms of seriousness. Respondents were also asked about the public's influence on criminal justice agencies and on the performance of certain criminal justice agencies. Respondents were presented with a list of crimes and asked how typical these offenses were and what factors influenced their decisions about such cases (e.g., intent, motive, evidence, behavior, prior history, injury or loss, substance abuse, emotional trauma). Other variables measured how often and under what circumstances the public defender and client and the public defender and the district attorney agreed on the case, defendant characteristics in terms of who should not be put on the stand, the effects of Proposition 8, public defender and district attorney plea guidelines, attorney discretion, and advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of a defendant. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, religion, years of experience, and area of responsibility.

This indicator is based on location of residence. Mortality rate has been age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population. ICD 10 codes used to identify homicides are X85-Y09, Y87.1, and U01-U02. Single-year data are only available for Los Angeles County overall, Service Planning Areas, Supervisorial Districts, City of Los Angeles overall, and City of Los Angeles Council Districts.Violence is a public health crisis in the US, with gun violence being a major driver. Almost three quarters of homicides involve firearms. In the US, the age-adjusted homicide rate from firearms is more than 20 times higher than in the European Union or in Australia. Significant disparities by age, sex, and race and ethnicity exist, with young adults ages 15-34 years, males, and Black individuals most disproportionately impacted. Comprehensive prevention strategies should work to address the underlying physical, social, economic, and structural conditions known to increase risk.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.

The graph illustrates the number of victims of race-based hate crimes in the United States in 2025. The x-axis lists various ethnic groups, while the y-axis represents the corresponding number of victims. The data reveals that Anti-Black hate crimes were the most prevalent, with 1,743 victims, followed by Anti-Hispanic and Anti-Asian crimes with 629 and 201 victims respectively. Other categories include Anti-Other Race (308), Anti-American Indian (74), Anti-Arab (73), and Anti-Native Pacific (25). The data indicates a significant disparity in the number of victims across different ethnic groups, with Anti-Black hate crimes being the most prominent.

In 2023, a total of ******* Hispanic/Latino victims experienced one or more violent crime. This was a decrease from the previous year, when there were ******* Hispanic or Latino victims of violent crime.

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.

BackgroundThe gap between the highest and lowest life expectancies for race-county combinations in the United States is over 35 y. We divided the race-county combinations of the US population into eight distinct groups, referred to as the “eight Americas,” to explore the causes of the disparities that can inform specific public health intervention policies and programs. Methods and FindingsThe eight Americas were defined based on race, location of the county of residence, population density, race-specific county-level per capita income, and cumulative homicide rate. Data sources for population and mortality figures were the Bureau of the Census and the National Center for Health Statistics. We estimated life expectancy, the risk of mortality from specific diseases, health insurance, and health-care utilization for the eight Americas. The life expectancy gap between the 3.4 million high-risk urban black males and the 5.6 million Asian females was 20.7 y in 2001. Within the sexes, the life expectancy gap between the best-off and the worst-off groups was 15.4 y for males (Asians versus high-risk urban blacks) and 12.8 y for females (Asians versus low-income southern rural blacks). Mortality disparities among the eight Americas were largest for young (15–44 y) and middle-aged (45–59 y) adults, especially for men. The disparities were caused primarily by a number of chronic diseases and injuries with well-established risk factors. Between 1982 and 2001, the ordering of life expectancy among the eight Americas and the absolute difference between the advantaged and disadvantaged groups remained largely unchanged. Self-reported health plan coverage was lowest for western Native Americans and low-income southern rural blacks. Crude self-reported health-care utilization, however, was slightly higher for the more disadvantaged populations. ConclusionsDisparities in mortality across the eight Americas, each consisting of millions or tens of millions of Americans, are enormous by all international standards. The observed disparities in life expectancy cannot be explained by race, income, or basic health-care access and utilization alone. Because policies aimed at reducing fundamental socioeconomic inequalities are currently practically absent in the US, health disparities will have to be at least partly addressed through public health strategies that reduce risk factors for chronic diseases and injuries.

The graph illustrates the murder rate in the United States from 1985 to 2025. The x-axis represents the years, labeled with two-digit abbreviations from '85 to '25, while the y-axis shows the annual murder rate per 100,000 individuals. Throughout this 41-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.

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 research project examined rural and urban trends in family and intimate partner homicide for the 20-year period from 1980 through 1999. The construct of place served as a backdrop against which changes in trends in family/partner homicide were tracked, and against which various independent measures that purportedly explain variation in the rates were tested. The project merged data from several sources. The offender data file from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) series for 1980 through 1999 was the primary data source. Data for arrests for violent crime, drug, and alcohol-related offenses were obtained from the FBI Report A Arrest File. Population, population density, and race (and racial segregation) data from the decennial U.S. Census for 1980, 1990, and 2000 were also obtained. Data on hospitals, educational attainment, unemployment, and per capita income were obtained from the 2002 Area Resource File (ARF). The total number of proprietors (farm and non-farm) in the United States by state and county for each year were provided by the Regional Economic Profiles data. The project's population and proximity indicator used four categories: metropolitan, nonmetropolitan populations adjacent to a metropolitan area, nonmetropolitan populations not adjacent to a metropolitan area, and rural. Data include homicide rates for 1980 through 1999 for intimate partner homicide, family homicide, all other homicide, and all homicide. Additional variables are included as measures of community socioeconomic distress, such as residential overcrowding, isolation, traditionalist views of women and family, lack of access to health care, and substance abuse. Five-year averages are included for each of the rates and measures listed above.