Crime up? Down? All around? Deflect spin by crunching key numbers

So, in case you haven't noticed, the city of San Bernardino collectively scratched its head two weekends ago when the Sun printed a front-page story touting crime being at its lowest level in decades.

"What?" many readers no doubt wondered, has not the city's narrative - from newspapers, politicos, activists, police brass, etc. - since the late 2005 death of 11-year-old Mynisha Crenshaw been that crime is terrifyingly out of control and requires massive resources (largest jump in police funding in city history), new taxes (Measure Z, making our sales tax highest in the area), and bold new programs (Operation Phoenix) to contain?

Well, according to Chief Michael Billdt, Mayor Pat Morris, and a trove of statistics police assembled and provided to our newspaper, it's all about context and proportion. According to these stats, crime is actually way down and been generally steadily falling since 1985, at least when numbers are examined on a per capita basis.

All the numbers except the most important one: Criminal homicides, which are more than double what they were in 1985. More on that later.

Basically, population has risen while total crimes have not, meaning the rate of crimes per person has fallen, meaning the city is safer, Billdt and Morris claim.

There is at least one major problem with all this, and it was pointed out by a criminologist in the above referenced story: Most crime statistics are subjective, or at least subject to imprecision.

First off, people may not report crime if they don't trust or like the police. Second, police have reclassified, misreported, or used a number of other techniques to manipulate crime rates over the last few decades.

To be clear, I'm not saying that is happening in SBPD in 2008, but it has been documented or alleged to have happened in other departments in the past, including SBPD.

There is one stat that seems immune to subjectivity: Criminal homicides.

And what does this stat tell us about our city?

The dry truth is that it indicates something close to the opposite of what Billdt and Morris contend.

In 1985, the city recorded 17 homicides. In 2007, the city recorded 47. This is a statistic provided by the Police Department but publicized only here, on this blog. Due to its exactitude, most criminologists will tell you this is the most reliable number when gauging big-city crime.

Think about that number, 17, for a moment. If we had 17 homicides in a year now, how would our politics be different? 17 seems like an especially low number for a city that hasn't seen less than 40 killings in years.

Even scaled for the rise in population, this comparison of numbers shows a homicide rate that has virtually doubled since 1985. That's a lot more killing.

Morris said the answer to the question of are we safer today than in 1985 is a "resounding yes."

Predictably, this has raised the ire of members of the council and City Attorney James F. Penman.

Objectively, we're talking about nearly three times as many killings today as 1985. Per capita, nearly double the murder rate.

Regardless of what the other stats say (and they say the city has less crime), the fundamental truth remains that public leaders are making the argument that the city was more dangerous then - despite far more bloodshed now.