Death, taxes, politicians talking about crime: things that you can pretty reliably expect to happen if you live in the United States. Crime is a politicized issue with a high potential for sensationalism and misinformation. Even the term “crime” is complicated! It means different things at different times in different places to different people, and it’s notoriously hard to measure (a problem made worse by this country’s arcane system for collecting crime data). What we do know is that crime is a big issue in this election cycle. It’s hard to turn on the TV, open the mailbox, or scroll a newsfeed without seeing some candidate somewhere talking about crime. 

This doesn’t just show up in campaign materials or focus group responses. It’s in the news, too. We’re both people who consume a larger-than-is-healthy amount of political news, and we’ve seen both good and bad coverage of crime and harm during election seasons past and present. From Willie Horton in the 1990s through the racist “migrant caravan” trope of 2018, there’s a long history of irresponsible media coverage of crime during election years. That said, we have been heartened to see so much fact-checking of inaccurate claims about crime (and immigration!) this year. 

We want to use these next few weeks to offer up some context and story ideas, and we’re excited to do that in part through guest interviews. You’ll hear from people who have expertise in the kinds of policies we know actually work to reduce violence, people who are tracking trends in criminal legal reforms across the country (including the most esoteric local elections!), people who understand how media consumption can impact our sense of safety, and more. We hope this series of interviews will provide some clarity around trends, seed new story ideas, and, if nothing else, introduce you to some smart new sources. 

We’re starting this week with Laura Bennett, who is Hannah’s wonderful colleague – she’s the Director of The Center for Just Journalism and an expert in public safety research and media analysis. 

One last thing - Josie has a new podcast out! It’s called The Thirty Year Project, and is a mini-mini-series (4 episodes) looking back on the 1994 crime bill, which was signed thirty years ago this week. The bill has received widespread backlash and been blamed in part for the carceral system we have now, but what impact did it really have? Josie looks at the history of the bill, debunk the myths, and take a brief look at mass incarceration then and now. You can find it on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get podcasts! Please follow the podcast, give it a listen, and rate it! 

Now! On to Laura! 

Hannah and Josie: Before we start talking about crime as an election issue, can you help us set the stage? What do we know about current crime trends?

Laura: As you mentioned in your smart introduction, measuring crime is really complicated. There are thousands of crimes in this country, and new ones are added every year (like, recently, abortion in many states), but most of our public data-collection resources are spent focusing on seven crimes: murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, and car theft. (The wonky term for them is “index crimes.”) That means that lots of crimes and other kinds of harm aren’t captured in our most prominent measure of public safety–things like tax evasion, wage theft, workplace safety violations, illegal evictions, etc… 

All that said, index crimes are important too, and we can use this data to say something–if not everything–about public safety in the United States. Violent and property crime rates (as measured by those seven crimes listed above) fell dramatically between the early 1990s and the early 2010s and then stayed pretty consistent through 2019. In 2020, homicide rates rose sharply, driven by a nationwide increase in gun violence. Rates for most of the other index crimes stayed pretty flat in 2020 or even fell. In 2021, homicide rates continued to increase (albeit at a slower pace), car theft increased (driven by social media videos that demonstrated how to exploit weakness in some cars’ security systems), and other index crime rates stayed pretty much the same. Mercifully, homicide rates began to fall in 2022, followed by what appears to be a record-breaking decrease in 2023 that has continued thus far in 2024. The jump in car theft also appears to be abating. Overall, reported crime rates across all seven index crimes are currently at or near historic lows. 

Hannah and Josie: Do voters seem to be aware of those crime trends?

Laura: In short: no! According to a recent Gallup survey, more than three quarters of Americans thought crime increased in the United States in 2023. And this misperception is nothing new. Gallup has been asking that question since 1989, and a majority of people thought crime had increased in all but two of those years (even though crime statistics said otherwise). There’s a very large and very enduring gulf between what people think is going on with crime in the U.S. and what the data says is going on with crime in the U.S. 

Hannah and Josie: Why is there such a big gulf between perception and reality? 

Laura: This is a really complicated thing to untangle, but two things immediately come to mind for me: 1) the way the human brain (mis)calculates risk, 2) the amorphous meaning of the word “crime,” and 3) the way the media covers crime. 

One part of the equation is that we humans are notoriously bad at understanding our own safety. People overestimate the likelihood that they will be the victim of a crime like robbery or burglary while underestimating the risks posed by other threats to their health and safety, like getting hurt at work and smoking. I’m not a psychologist, so I won’t attempt to fully explain this phenomenon, but I found this very readable summary in USA Today helpful. Basically, people overestimate risks when they carry the potential for catastrophe, seem outside of one’s control, and are caused by people (as opposed to natural forces), all of which apply to crime. 

Second, as I mentioned above, “crime” isn’t a straightforward concept. Of course, there is a dictionary definition, but crime is a very broad issue with a ton of political and social baggage. Some of this political baggage is made clear through Gallup data: when a Democrat is president, Republicans are more likely to think crime is increasing, and vice versa. And, of course, the history of the making and enforcement of laws in this country is rife with bias–racial, gender, class, citizenship status, and otherwise. Of course those myriad biases are going to carry over into public perceptions of crime. 

These problems are only exacerbated by traditional crime coverage. A recent Pew survey found that 70% of Americans get information about crime from the local news. So, despite the turmoil in the media world, local news outlets remain extremely influential in how people think about crime. Unfortunately, despite some recent attempts to reckon with the legacy of crime reporting, nonstop, episodic crime coverage and sensational language (“crime wave,” “epidemic of violence,” “shoplifting surge”) and images (shattered glass, police sirens, chalk outlines at a crime scene, handcuffs and bars) are still hallmarks of the beat. This coverage has a real impact: research shows that the standard script of local crime coverage elicits fear, drives punitiveness, and stokes racism. 

All of this adds up to a situation in which people are inundated with sensational crime stories, and their brains struggle to make sense of what they’re seeing. When you look at it that way, it’s really no wonder that people always think crime is on the rise. 

Hannah and Josie: Are these misperceptions affecting voter sentiment this year? 

Laura: It’s always hard to tell what voters are thinking, but crime does seem to be on people’s minds right now. In late 2023, 63% of people surveyed in a Gallup poll said that they thought crime was an extremely or very serious problem in the United States, the highest share since they started asking the question in 2000 and up from 54% in 2021 when homicide rates were considerably higher than they are now. Last week, a Pew survey found that 61% of registered voters say that violent crime is very important to their vote this year. That said, violent crime ranked behind four other issues (the economy, health care, Supreme Court appointments, and foreign policy) in the Pew survey, and a recent Economist/YouGov poll showed that only 2% of Americans said that crime was the most important issue to them. The tl;dr here is that crime is one of a handful of important issues to voters this election cycle, and it’s very poorly understood. 

Hannah and Josie: There are less than 8 weeks before election day. Is there anything journalists can do between now and then to address public misconceptions about crime? 

Laura: Yes! In addition to the small, daily opportunities to inject context about crime into any election story, there’s one big opportunity to correct the record coming up. Sometime in the next few weeks, the FBI will release national-level crime statistics for 2023. (Why this data comes out almost 10 months after the fact is a question for another day.) The release of that data will give journalists an opportunity to help correct misunderstandings about crime in the United States. Here are a few things I’d recommend and you can read more in this brief if you’d like:

• Place the data in historical context. As I’ve already mentioned, homicide rates are currently at modern lows, but people don’t seem to believe that’s the case. When reporting on new data, it’s very important for journalists to compare it not just to the last year or two but to 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 30 years ago, etc… Some journalists might be worried about appearing to minimize crime, and I get that. But it’s possible to acknowledge that the U.S. has a much higher rate of some violent crimes than other large, wealthy countries while also explaining that that rate is much lower than it used to be. 

• Place the data in geographic context. I haven’t touched on this much, but location is another big factor is misperceptions about crime. People are more likely to think crime is increasing nationally than where they live, so it’s important for journalists to compare what’s going on in their own communities with regional, national, and even international trends. The 2020-21 increase in homicide was experienced nationwide–rural, suburban, and urban areas of the U.S. alike. Very few places were spared. Similarly, the current decline seems to be happening across the board. That’s important for people to understand. 

• Use caution with how numbers are presented. Percentages can be misleading in some contexts. Reported rates of many crimes remain at or near historic lows, so it is important to note that percentage increases or decreases appear larger today than they would have in the 1980s or ‘90s because the baseline is lower. This is particularly important in the context of homicide. Murder remains the rarest index crime tracked by police, and the murder rate, prior to 2020, was near its lowest point in decades. Both of these factors make numerical changes appear large in percentage form. This is especially true in rural areas and small cities where homicides often number in the tens, not hundreds, each year. For example, stating that the number of homicides increased from 10 to 12 may make more sense than saying the number increased by 20%.

—

That’s (mostly) it for now! If you have any questions for Laura, she’d love to hear from you: laura@justjournalism.org. Just a few things before we go: 

Some things we’ve been reading and thinking about lately:

• This ProPublica piece by Kavitha Surana tells the story of the wholly preventable death of a young mom in Georgia, who died as a direct result of the state’s abortion ban. Amber Thurman lived in Metro Atlanta, with access to excellent hospitals, but because of the abortion ban was unable to get a D&C – a safe, routine procedure that was also the emergency care that she needed. 

• As we’ve highlighted in a past edition of The Jump Line, it’s been something of a rough year for access to open records. After the Reason Foundation (the 501c3 that publishes the magazine Reason) filed a public records lawsuit with the Federal Bureau of Prisons seeking information about people who have died in custody, a US District Court Judge ruled that not only can the government hide findings about whether people in their custody died as a result of inadequate care, they can also hide findings because of the potential for the agency to be criticized. A declaration from an official within the Bureau of Prisons could be used, according to the judge, to “ridicule” the BOP. CJ Ciaramella reports on the litigation – and what it means – here.