Trends of Crime Statistics in California

In many parts of the country today, race and ethnic related crimes are being analyzed and reviewed for various purposes. This study focuses on the California crime statistics and trends with regards to ethnic propensity for committing certain crimes based on the UCR crime reports and other sources. The limitations of this study will focus mostly on the UCR report of 2005 which was made public in October of 2006 unless otherwise specified in the text of the report. Trends of Crime Statistics in California The state of California is one of the more mixed population state in the United States today.

As such, the commission of crime and the study thereof cannot be helped but be associated with regards its relation to race and ethnicity to better sourced out the trends and how to better combat or stave off and respond to these trends. The latest crime statistics we have so far was the October 2006 publication of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program or UCR of the 2005 Crime statistics and from there; I derived much of the analysis and trends for this report. Based on the 2005 summary report of the UCR for the state of California for single-bias incidents of crimes, 54.

7% were racially motivated. Consequently, 56% of these were motivated by racial bias. Also, of the 4,691 hate crime offenses, 68. 9% were triggered by anti-black bias; 19. 9% were anti-white bias, 4. 9% were anti-Asian/Pacific islander bias, 4. 9% were categorized anti-multiple races group bias, and 2. 0% were anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias. Based on Table 3 of the UCR (2005), it was also summarized that of the 1,144 hate crime offenses, the reports were based on the perceived ethnic origin of the victims. Of these, 57.

7% were anti-Hispanic while 42. 3% were from other ethnic origin. In further breaking down and determining the analysis for trends of crimes committed in the state of California, there are three corollary questions that I will focus on and towards the end, derive a conclusion for the given thesis. The corollary questions are as follows: 1. 1 Based on the statistics for the state of California, do minorities commit more crimes? If so, which minorities? 1. 2 Were non-minorities arrested more for any crime? Could discrimination be a factor? If so, how? 1.

3 Based on the information from the UCR report and from your readings, do you think there could be racial or ethnic discrimination in arrests? Based on the UCR (2005) raw statistics alone, it is very hard to determine and statistically conclude if any one minority group stands out as committing more crimes than any other ethnic group. However, the date available from the report indicates that there are more incidents committed by and against African Americans. Referring to Table 3 of the UCR (2005) report for a summary of Offenses and Known Offender’s race, there were a total of 8,380 offenses.

Of this, 5,190 were categorized as Crimes against persons, 3. 109 were Crimes against pr0perty and 81 were considered Crimes against society. Still referring from Table 3 of the UCR (2005) report, of the category Crimes against persons, 3008 offenses were committed by White, 771 by Black or African-American, 54 by American Indian or Alaskan native, 40 were by Asian Pacific Islander 184 by Multiple races or Group, 356 by Unknown or uncategorized race, and 777 were by still unknown offenders.

Of the category Crimes against property, 525 were committed by White, 143 were committed by Black or African American, 13 were committed by American Indian or Alaskan Native, 4 were by Asian or Pacific Islander, 29 were by multiple races or Group, 391 were by Unknown race, and 2004 were by Unknown offenders. Of the category Crimes against society, 52 were committed by White, 19 were committed by Black or African American, 1 by American Indian or Alaskan Native, 0 by Asian or Pacific Islander, 2 by multi-races or Group, 4 by Unknown offenders, and 2 by unknown offenders.

Just by looking at the raw statistics cited, it can be deduced that the most number of offenses were committed by White at 43%, Black or African American at 11%, American Indian or Alaskan Native at less than 1% (. 8%), Asian at less than 1% (. 5%), Multi race at 2%, Unknown race at 8%, and 33% by unknown offenders. Meanwhile, the 2005 report entitled “Crimes in California” produced by the Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s office indicated several important statistics in Table 31 which gave a racial profile of crimes committed.

First, there were a total of 538,166 offenses committed for 2005. Of these, 180,630 or 33% were committed by White; 215,604 or 40% were committed by Hispanic; 113,520 or 21% were committed by Black; And lastly 28,412 or less than 1% (. 5%) were committed by other ethnic groups; If we look at the aforementioned statistics again from Table 2 of the UCR (2005), the Whites were responsible for 43% of total hate crime related offenses. Since the category was hate crimes related, then discrimination against other races is definitely a factor.

More attacks by White were conducted against Black or African American more than any other ethnic groups. Again, due to the limited available sources available, it is hard to say how but the only available data is that crimes committed with the hate crime category is that these are committed against the victims’ person (and possibly family members) and their property. From the readings alone, it is hard to determine any ethnic discrimination at all because raw statistics were given both from the UCR (2005) report and from the Attorney General’s office.

Conclusion In trying to determine if there is any one particular ethnic group that has any propensity or tendency to committing certain crimes, the raw data of 2005 from the sources referenced failed to show any of it. The one thing that stands out though for the category of Hate Crimes, Whites (43%) are more prone to attack Blacks or African Americans more than any other group. Meanwhile, with regards general crime category for 2005, Hispanics (40%) comprised the largest ethnic groups that were arrested.

References: [1] Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2005) Published by the US Department of Justice, FBI. (Released October 2006). From: http://www. fbi. gov/ucr/hc2005/table14california. htm [2] LaFree, Gary. Losing Legitimacy: Street Crime and the Decline of Social Institutions in America, 1946-96. From: http://books. google. com/books? hl=en&lr=&id=9LIQC3MJPeMC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PR11&sig=cD35dJB2ao4o7XOaNgP18s2Sit4&dq=California+UCR+crime+statistics+#PRA1-PA21,M1

[3] California Crime statistics. From: http://losangeles. areaconnect. com/crime1. htm [4] Crimes in California (2005). Published by Attorney General’s Office. California Department of Justice Division of California Justice Information Services Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis. CRIMINAL JUSTICE STATISTICS CENTER CALIFORNIA 005 2 n. Table 31 from: http://ag. ca. gov/cjsc/publications/candd/cd05/dataTables. pdf