In this episode, I sit down with John Lott, founder and president of The Crime Prevention Research Center, to discuss his extensive research into national crime rates, arrest rates, as well as gun permit laws and how they impact crime.
“In 2022, the last year that we have the National Crime Victimization data for, while the FBI showed a 2 percent drop in violent crime, the National Crime Victimization data showed a 42 percent increase in total violent crime,” says Lott.
Why is there such a disconnect between media reporting that violent crime is down and the public’s perception that crime is surging?
Watch the video:
“If you look at arrests for total crimes, reported and unreported, only 8 percent of violent crimes result in arrest,” says Lott.
Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Jan Jekielek:
John Lott, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.
John Lott:
It’s great to talk to you again. Thanks for having me on.
Mr. Jekielek:
John, I often turn to you for insights on crime statistics. Currently, different agencies are providing conflicting information with varying numbers. What is your observation at this time?
Mr. Lott:
Several media outlets are discussing the decline in crime rates over the past few years. However, most of the media lacks an understanding of the differing statistics being presented. There are two primary sources for crime data, both from the Department of Justice. The first is the FBI data, which records the number of crimes reported to law enforcement. The second is the National Crime Victimization Survey, which surveys approximately 240,000 individuals annually to gauge the overall level of reported and unreported crime.
It is well known that the majority of violent and property crimes go unreported to the police, as confirmed by the National Crime Victimization data. For example, around 42 percent of violent crimes are reported, while only 32 percent of property crimes are reported. Additionally, the rate of unreported crimes has been subject to significant fluctuations in recent years.
Historically, the FBI reported crime data and the National Crime Victimization data moved in tandem. However, over the past three years, they have shown a perfect negative correlation. To illustrate, in 2022, the most recent year for which we have National Crime Victimization data, the FBI reported a 2 percent decrease in violent crimes, while the National Crime Victimization data indicated a 42 percent increase in total violent crime.
I believe the primary reason for this disparity is the declining rate of arrests. Law enforcement in the United States has experienced a significant deterioration. Many are aware of this change, as witnessed by the prevalence of items behind glass at stores like CVS or Walgreens in numerous areas of the country. Such precautions were not commonplace a few years ago and now exist in various retail operations.
In large cities with populations exceeding one million, there has been a consistent decline in the arrest rate for violent crimes, which was around 44 percent prior to the COVID pandemic. This rate started dropping in 2020 and reached 20 percent by 2022, marking a decline of over 50 percent.
It is important to note that these statistics pertain to reported crimes only. When considering both reported and unreported crimes, the arrest rate for violent offenses drops to a mere eight percent, while the corresponding rate for total property crimes stands at just one percent. Not everyone who is arrested is charged, let alone prosecuted and convicted. This has resulted in a significant shift.
If you examine crime data from the past 70 years, you will find no similar trend, especially not within a three-year time frame. It has long been known that when people perceive that criminals are unlikely to be apprehended and punished, they are less inclined to report crimes. Additionally, reporting crimes has become more challenging.
Mr. Jekielek:
You mentioned that many CVS and other similar stores have implemented measures such as placing products behind glass. We have seen this in New York and D.C., but that is not violent crime. Is the overall crime rate increasing across all categories?
Mr. Lott:
Yes. While the increase in murders is approximately seven percent when compared to before the Covid pandemic, other forms of violent crime have experienced much greater spikes. Additionally, property crime has surged. Police budget cuts have resulted in a shift where law enforcement focuses primarily on severe crimes like murder and allocates fewer resources to other types of offenses. Consequently, instances of these other crimes have escalated. Criminals feel relatively secure in evading capture and punishment, leading to a rise in criminal activities.
Mr. Jekielek:
That accounts for the lower increase in murder, because the resources are going to the most serious problems.
Mr. Lott:
Exactly. This is evident in the police response. In many parts of the country, when you call 911, they will ask you, “Is this an emergency?” They’re trying to figure out if the crime is still in progress. If it is, they will dispatch a police car. Otherwise, they advise you to visit the police station to report the incident.
This was not the case four or five years ago when a police car would be dispatched for any reported crime. It exemplifies their need to prioritize due to limited resources. Naturally, they always respond to murders promptly, but for some other forms of violent crime, they may not send a patrol.
Mr. Jekielek:
Regarding the crime of murder, are the reported rates consistent with the actual rates?
Mr. Lott:
Yes. Murder is the one type of crime that doesn’t have the reporting problem that you see with other types of crime. That’s exactly right.
Mr. Jekielek:
Please tell us what has happened to police departments. There are a number of stories about turnarounds in certain states and districts.
Mr. Lott:
Yes, there were a lot of big budget cuts in 2020 and 2021. Recently, there has been a trend of rehiring police officers, but retirements have also been prevalent in law enforcement agencies. It is possible that you may have lost a team member with 15 years of experience, and now you have hired someone who has only been on the job for six months to a year. It is clear that the less experienced officer will not be as effective as someone with 15 years of experience.
I would like to address an important issue regarding murder rates. Currently, a significant number of police departments are failing to report data to the FBI. There have been changes in reporting rules starting in 2021, and by 2022, around 92 percent of police departments were no longer providing any data to the FBI. This is a drastic increase from the three percent reported in 2020. Additionally, 24 percent of police departments were only partially reporting crime data.
Consequently, less than half of the police departments are now reporting complete crime data to the FBI, a significant decrease from the previous 97 percent. The FBI is compelled to estimate and make assumptions about the missing data, but this approach has its flaws. It affects various aspects of crime reporting, including murder and other violent crimes, as well as property crimes.
Mr. Jekielek:
Does the FBI database contain these estimated guesses and assumptions you mentioned?
Mr. Lott:
Yes, exactly.
Mr. Jekielek:
Why have they stopped reporting? This is a significant shift.
Mr. Lott:
The Biden administration introduced changes to reporting requirements, demanding more detailed information and increased frequency of reporting. Many police departments found these new requirements burdensome and decided not to comply. In some cases, it seems that some departments are using this as an excuse. Despite crime data being available on their websites, they have chosen not to report it to the FBI.
Mr. Jekielek:
Are you aware of the specific numbers and the decline in reporting across different departments nationwide?
Mr. Lott:
Based on the FBI data, we can observe a decrease in reported crimes. However, the National Crime Victimization data presents a different perspective. Not only is their overall measurement different from the FBI, but their reported crime measure also varies. In 2022, while the FBI reported a two percent drop in reported crimes, the National Crime Victimization data showed a 29 percent increase. There are several reasons for this disparity.
For instance, some departments now require individuals to visit the police station to file a report, instead of dispatching a police car upon receiving a call to 911. It is important to note that simply calling 911 does not automatically result in police action. For the proper reporting of a crime, it is necessary for an officer to complete a police report.
Another issue that arises is the downgrading of crimes in various locations, such as New York City and Manhattan. Alvin Bragg, who has recently gained significant attention, has downgraded 60 percent of violent felonies, predominantly aggravated assaults. This is primarily due to his refusal to prosecute individuals for firearms offenses. The distinction between an aggravated assault, which is a felony, and a simple assault, which is a misdemeanor, lies in the use of a weapon during the incident.
By failing to prosecute offenders for weapons offenses, Bragg has effectively downgraded a significant portion of these felonies from aggravated assaults to simple assaults. This manipulation of crime classifications influences the FBI’s crime data, as the FBI only includes aggravated assaults in its violent crime statistics, excluding simple assaults. Consequently, reclassifying these crimes leads to a reduction in the reported crime figures presented by the FBI.
However, the national crime victimization data captures these incidents, as it collects information from individuals who have experienced crimes. For instance, if a person reports being assaulted with a gun, the national crime victimization data records it as an aggravated assault, while the FBI’s data does not acknowledge it as such.
Mr. Jekielek:
Are there other databases that have this incongruence?
Mr. Lott:
I know about crime data the best. We know that there have been some issues with the FBI reported crime data before. Over time, the national crime victimization data has been deemed the gold standard, as it provides a comprehensive view of total crimes, including ones that go unreported. This data serves as the primary measure of crime rates, considering that a significant number of violent crimes remain unreported.
Mr. Jekielek:
What about the societal perception of crime? Today, people may feel that crime rates are on the rise.
Mr. Lott:
You see headline after headline in the news articles that say crime is falling, but people think that it’s increasing. I can give you dozens of headlines like that. Various surveys conducted by organizations like Gallup, Harris, and Rasmussen consistently indicate an increasing fear of violent crime. However, these public perceptions do not align with the FBI’s reported crime data, which suggests a decline in crime rates. As a result, media outlets often publish articles that raise doubt and confusion, highlighting the disconnect between public perception and reported statistics.
There is a prevailing misconception among individuals, and they attribute this perception to the news media’s coverage of crimes. They argue that such coverage creates a false impression. You can go to CVS or Walgreens, and people know that three or four years ago, everything wasn’t behind glass in a lot of these stores. They understand that companies enforce these measures for a reason.
For instance, when attempting to make purchases, I have personally experienced the need to call a clerk over to unlock a product while they stand by as I review the package ingredients. I empathize with the burden this places on them and acknowledge the associated costs. They only implement these protocols due to the high incidence of property theft.
I conducted a study on the geographical distribution of crime within Los Angeles County and have also undertaken similar work in other locations. Over the past few years, there has been a noticeable shift in crime patterns, with crime incidents emerging in zip codes that historically had lower crime rates. Consequently, not only have areas previously characterized by high violent crime rates seen an increase, but safer areas have also been impacted.
Mr. Jekielek:
Does this trend extend across the board?
Mr. Lott:
I only have extensively analyzed data from Los Angeles County, I have also examined Cook County, which presents a somewhat similar pattern.
Mr. Jekielek:
I have come across statistics suggesting that more people are purchasing firearms for self-protection.
Mr. Lott:
To varying degrees, individuals have become aware that law enforcement has collapsed in our country.
Mr. Jekielek:
Can you clarify that? When you say law enforcement has collapsed, that’s a very strong statement.
Mr. Lott:
Right. The decline in arrest rates for violent crimes from 44 to 20 percent in major cities is a staggering drop. These statistics reflect arrest rates for reported crimes. Moreover, the arrest rates for total violent crimes in these cities sit at a mere eight percent, with total property crimes at one percent. What then is the risk associated with committing crime in these areas? It must be noted that not all arrested individuals face charges, let alone prosecution or conviction, so a genuine problem exists.
I do not claim that this situation is not worse in other countries. In fact, I recently gave talks in Brazil, where only 9 percent of murders result in the identification of the perpetrator. A mere three percent of murders progress to trial, and convictions are secured in only two percent of cases. Although there may be countries experiencing even more dire situations, compared to the traditional rates in the United States, our rates of apprehending and penalizing individuals are alarmingly low.
This issue extends beyond a mere lack of arrests. In many major urban areas across the country, there are prosecutors who refuse to press charges against violent criminals and those involved in property crimes. Unfortunately, this not only demoralizes the police force but also raises concerns about the effectiveness of making arrests. Law enforcement officers are left questioning the purpose of apprehending someone when there is a potential risk to their own safety and the arrested individual is promptly released without charges.
Moreover, there are numerous other rules and regulations that inhibit the police’s ability to carry out their duties effectively. For instance, in California, even routine traffic stops are burdened with excessive paperwork. Officers are required to spend around 40 minutes completing forms that even include the need to speculate on the sexual orientation of the individuals they pulled over. However, they are prohibited from directly asking for this information. This process is not only time-consuming but also raises concerns about privacy.
As a result, it appears that many police officers in California are conducting fewer traffic stops for offenses such as running stop signs or speeding. It would be interesting to study the data and examine the impact of these rules on traffic accidents. If issuing tickets for running stop signs serves as a deterrent, the reduction in traffic stops could potentially lead to an increase in such cases, considering the rationale behind having laws against these infractions.
Mr. Jekielek:
Are more individuals arming themselves?
Mr. Lott:
Yes, there has been a big increase in individuals arming themselves. Presently, there are approximately 22 million Americans with concealed carry permits in the United States. Additionally, we have 29 states that allow constitutional carry, meaning individuals can possess firearms without the need for a permit.
In our recent survey, we aimed to gather information on the prevalence of carrying concealed handguns. Pew conducted a similar study in 2017, which found that approximately five percent of likely American voters carried firearms most or all of the time. Our survey indicated that this number has risen to about 15 percent as of 2023. Therefore, we have observed a substantial threefold increase in the number of individuals carrying concealed firearms between 2017 and 2023. This demonstrates a clear response from the public to the existing situation.
There are varying concerns about violent crime across different states, such as California, New York, and New Jersey. In these states, the number of individuals carrying firearms is relatively low. However, other states have seen an increase in constitutional carry laws in recent years due to the rise in violent crime during the Covid pandemic.
Approximately 20 states temporarily ceased issuing concealed carry permits during this time, leading individuals to realize the importance of not depending solely on government permission to exercise their right to carry firearms. The potential risk of future disasters or government shutdowns further emphasized the need for self-defense measures.
In light of the above, the concept of individuals carrying firearms acts as a deterrent against criminal activity. Much like the effect of higher arrest rates, conviction rates, and prison sentences in discouraging criminals, the knowledge that potential victims may possess the means to defend themselves also makes criminal acts more perilous.
As a former Chief Economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission in Washington, I have encountered numerous trial transcripts highlighting the decision-making process of a criminal. Perpetrators often discuss selecting targets based on perceived vulnerability. For example, they would avoid targeting armed criminals or individuals with known firearm possession, preferring easy victims such as solitary women crossing dimly lit parking lots late at night.
In order for self-defense measures to have a significant impact, it is crucial that those most at risk of becoming victims of violent crime are the ones carrying firearms. States like Illinois, where acquiring a concealed carry permit can cost up to $450 in fees and training expenses, lead to suburban residents obtaining permits, although they do not face the same risks as individuals in higher-crime areas.
To effectively reduce crime rates, it is necessary to ensure that those facing the highest risk of violence have the means to protect themselves. My research suggests that low-income black individuals are among the demographics that benefit the most from exercising their right to carry firearms. People living in high-crime urban areas are most likely to be victims of violent crime. My research also shows that individuals who are physically weaker, such as women and the elderly, benefit the most.
It is important to note that the majority of attackers in these cases are young men, and there is typically a significant strength difference between a man and a woman. Thus, the presence of a gun represents a much greater relative change in a woman’s ability to protect herself compared to a man. In my research, I have found that the most vulnerable individuals in society benefit the most from having the option to protect themselves, especially when law enforcement resources may be limited.
Mr. Jekielek:
Are there reductions in violent crime in states that have adopted constitutional carry? What about states that have concealed carry?
Mr. Lott:
When states switch to constitutional carry, we often see significant drops in violent crime rates since a larger number of people are likely to carry firearms without a permit.
Unfortunately, we do not have specific data on the number of permits issued in these states. However, in states that rely solely on issuing permits, as the percentage of the adult population with permits increases, we also observe decreases in violent crime rates. It is particularly crucial to consider who is carrying a firearm. Lower fees and costs for obtaining permits often result in more minorities and individuals from low-income backgrounds carrying, which has a substantial impact on reducing violent crime rates.
For more information, individuals can visit our website at crimeresearch.org, where we have peer-reviewed academic research and an annual report on concealed carry permits by state. We have been conducting this research since 2013 and have been able to track the relationship between permit issuance and violent crime rates over time.
Mr. Jekielek:
Does the cost of obtaining a permit play a major role in these changes?
Mr. Lott:
The cost of a permit does have a big impact. When the price of a permit increases, people tend to purchase fewer permits. For example, in Illinois, where the cost of obtaining a concealed carry permit is $450, only about four percent of the adult population has one. In neighboring Indiana, where there is no charge for a permit or the associated background check, approximately 23 percent of the adult population has a gun permit. This stark difference can be attributed to the lower cost and accessibility of permits in Indiana, leading to a higher number of individuals, particularly from low-income and minority communities, obtaining permits.
It is interesting to note that those who benefit the most from the ability to carry firearms are the ones who frequently choose to do so in Indiana, as compared to Illinois. In Illinois, despite having concealed carry laws in place, it is unlikely to observe a significant decrease in violent crime rates, especially when considering that the four percent of individuals who legally carry firearms are often wealthy residents residing in low-crime areas.
Mr. Jekielek:
John, how did you become such an expert on this topic?
Mr. Lott:
I have a Ph.D. in economics, and economics has a couple basic ideas. But one of the ideas is that incentives matter. If something is more costly, people do less of it. If they get greater returns, they do more of it. That applies not only to the price of apples, it also applies to crime. If crime becomes riskier for criminals to engage in, they commit less crime. It’s not rocket science to me.
Throughout my career, I have extensively studied crime, starting with my doctoral research. Moreover, I have served as the chief economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission and held senior advisor roles for research and statistics in the Department of Justice, specifically within the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Legal Policy. My involvement in these governmental capacities allowed me to engage with data compilation experts, presenting me with a deeper understanding of data definitions and collection methodologies.
Mr. Jekielek:
But you didn’t come into this expecting to find these results.
Mr. Lott:
That is correct. Additionally, I must mention that the issues associated with FBI data vs. national crime victimization data have arisen fairly recently. Therefore, it is unlikely that our conversation would have discussed these problems five years ago.
Mr. Jekielek:
Turning our attention to regions like California and New York, where crime rates have been increasing despite strict firearm regulations, what are your thoughts?
Mr. Lott:
You raise a valid point. Crime rates are indeed rising in numerous locations, including California, Illinois, and New York. It is ironic, though, that while these states seem determined to ensure that the legal system does not pose substantial risks to criminals, they also impose severe restrictions on the ability of individuals to defend themselves.
In essence, they adopt a consistent stance by avoiding any measures that could potentially make it risky for criminals to commit offenses, be it due to the response of law enforcement or private citizens. Given these circumstances, it is unsurprising to witness a surge in criminal activities within these jurisdictions.
Mr. Jekielek:
Have you engaged with individuals who subscribe to this ideology?
Mr. Lott:
I attempt to engage in debates with individuals, but it proves to be quite challenging to find people willing to discuss either the topic of guns or crime. I have had the opportunity to listen to various prosecutors, and it surprises me when they assert that abolishing prisons would have no impact on crime rates. However, the evidence contradicts this notion. If individuals are not held accountable for aggravated assaults, we can expect to see an increase in such offenses.
Mr. Jekielek:
Your data supports this conclusion.
Mr. Lott:
Yes, my data does support this conclusion. However, it is something that most people seem to recognize intuitively. Anyone who has children knows that without guidelines and consequences for their actions, bad results uwill follow. This seems like common sense to me, perhaps due to my background as an economist. It is not overly complex.
Mr. Jekielek:
Have there been significant policy shifts in certain states recently?
Mr. Lott:
Absolutely. Many states have experienced considerable policy changes in the past few years. The number of constitutional carry states has increased significantly .
Mr. Jekielek:
Have there been any surprising developments?
Mr. Lott:
There are a couple of reasons behind this. During the Covid pandemic, several states suspended the issuance of permits. People realized the importance of being able to carry a weapon when necessary and not being restricted from doing so by the government. Additionally, there were cases where women were being stalked or threatened. Waiting 90 days to obtain a concealed carry permit was simply not feasible.
In Connecticut, the process could even take up to a year, but the danger they faced was immediate. If they had to wait 90 days, they could end up becoming victims or experiencing other forms of harm. Also, constitutional carry has basically been a continuation of a trend.
When states initially adopted concealed carry laws, they often imposed high fees and stringent training requirements, along with various restrictions on where one could carry.
Gun control advocates made dire predictions about the consequences of such legislation, but their credibility suffered when those predictions did not come to pass.
In response, some of the gun-free zones were eliminated, fees were reduced, and, in the case of Texas, fees were lowered from $140 to $40 in 2012 and 2013. All Republican legislators supported the fee reduction, while nearly all Democrats opposed it.
Consequently, the shift towards constitutional carry is essentially an extension of an existing trend.
Mr. Jekielek:
You’re describing a situation where states implement policy changes and evaluate the resulting data to determine if any problems arise.
Mr. Lott:
They learn through the process. With each change, gun control advocates consistently warn of impending disaster. However, history has shown that their predictions are often proven wrong. Many states have gradually loosened their gun control rules, despite these dire warnings. Eventually, these states cease to pay heed to such pronouncements.
Mr. Jekielek:
Are there any states that have recently gone to constitutional carry that you might not expect?
Mr. Lott:
Two recent examples are South Carolina and Louisiana. In fact, states from New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine in the Northeast, to Arizona, Alaska, Florida, and Georgia have embraced constitutional carry. Ohio was also a somewhat unexpected addition to this list. The Midwest is represented by Ohio and Indiana, and the southern states, including Tennessee and Kentucky, are fully on board. However, North Carolina and Virginia are still holding out. Depending on this year’s gubernatorial election, it is quite possible that North Carolina will follow suit.
Mr. Jekielek:
John, this has been a wonderful conversation. A final thought as we finish up?
Mr. Lott:
If you want to reduce crime, you have to make it risky for criminals to commit crime.
Mr. Jekielek:
John Lott, such a pleasure to have you on the show.
Mr. Lott:
Thank you very much for having me. I greatly appreciate it.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Comments