Bacon's Rebellion

2023 Crime Rate: Homicides Down But Otherwise Little Change

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Homicides in Virginia were lower in 2023 than the year before but aggravated assaults were up, and the overall number of criminal incidents climbed slightly, according to data published in the Virginia State Police’s “Crime in Virginia 2023″ report.

The number of homicides (murder and non-negligent homicide) fell to 520 in 2023, reversing a surge that began in 2020 during the George Floyd protests, and peaked at 621 in 2022. There were other bits of good news, including a modest decline in the number of forcible sex offenses.

Otherwise, there is little to indicate that the post-Floyd crime wave has receded. The total number of crimes of all types reported increased 2%. The number of aggravated assaults hit 14,317, up about 3% from the previous year.

Burglaries, robberies, and larcenies each were down but, despite the decriminalization of marijuana, drug offenses were up significantly, cocaine and crack, most notably. So were pornography and motor vehicle theft.

Hate crimes were higher, and assaults against law enforcement officers were up. I’ll have more about both in future posts.

All told, it was a mixed bag. If anyone tells you crime is down in Virginia, they’re blowing smoke. — JAB

 

 

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

55 responses to “2023 Crime Rate: Homicides Down But Otherwise Little Change”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    No matter how you spin it, overall, violent crime was down. Of the categories classified as violent crime, four showed a decrease in the crime rate. They were murder, forcible sex offenses, burglary, and robbery. The rates were higher for kidnapping and aggravated assault.

    Despite the litany of reasons for increased crime you cited last year , "Criminals were released earlier from prison. Bond laws were scrapped. Progressive commonwealth attorneys in Blue localities began applying “social justice” principles to the prosecution of minorities," the uptick in violent crime in the last year or two has abated and begun to come down. https://www.baconsrebellion.com/what-hath-wokeness-wrought/

    As I have stated before, crime rates are volatile. There needs to be more than one year's worth of data in order to make a definitive prognosis, but it looks like the surge in violent crime in the last couple of years may be just a blip on the overall decrease in violent crime over the last 30 years. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/us-crime-rates-and-trends-analysis-fbi-crime-statistics

  2. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    To look at crime the way BR sometimes seems to look at education and academic performance.

    Despite the billions of dollars spent, on police and prosecutors, judges, prisons, we STILL have crime AND it's the Dems fault!

    😉

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    ”The number of aggravated assaults hit 14,317, up about 3% from the previous year.”

    Well, it is an election year and that’s just at Republican State conventions (ref MI, AZ, CO)

    Ya know, when it comes to money spent, what’s far more important than the crime rate, or the numbers of various crimes committed, is how many do the cops clear? That’s what the money is for.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “Clear” or “commit”?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Little this, little that.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Even if we starts seeing political ads saying “they’re gonna come for your guns” ? 😉

    1. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      Mine already gone. Bought it during the hysteria (along with many neighbors) in Alex area that blacks would/might come across the Potomac and attack whites after the MLK assassination.

      Obviously misguided but then who knew what might happen. Times were tense.

      And no, I'm neither proud nor ashamed of it, Larry.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    saw this also:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/67840eca7478d3ed4a4cb332f9021f0bbdf97ef2952669958658869ec7fd66fb.png
    https://richmond.com/news/local/business/colonial-shooting-academy-closing/article_5395ed7e-63e2-11ef-9e21-432baf1ba0e3.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      Okay, but Virginia was still the #8 state in the nation for gun sales in 2023. The Commonwealth is #12 in population.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e208756bb057cbbee556d17b1a5031c8a4926426b6129e4a04ad1e2eaf000a61.png

    https://richmond.com/va-issues-sterner-warning-on-drunken-driving/article_8eb307e2-af58-5750-9325-f266de2ed96e.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share

  7. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/43c599145cc35e4ed19cc7c7cb1cb0b5e2e03d2bf7178d5a6328690e95edc306.png
    https://www.dulaneylauerthomas.com/blog/leading-causes-of-virginia-traffic-accidents-car-accident-lawyer.cfm#:~:text=Each%20year%20in%20Virginia%2C%20there,crashes%20involving%20injury%20or%20death.

  8. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    I'm glad homicides are trending downward.

  9. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    boogeyman politics… can you provide a link to the "mandatory buy back" program?

    Mainly, what needs to be done is to stop selling military style weapons (high capacity, high firing rate), to crazy people that we KNOW are crazy from their known behaviors and social media speech but we choose to wait until after they kill to find out instead of when they buy the guns.

  10. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    In terms of public safety, one has a higher chance of getting killing in an auto accident than being murdered.

    Interesting stats:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1f6435a379d01539ff903dcbee4dd89011b5865f460020cd3b0d44fb1adae432.png

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Here is a perennial violent crime stat that is seldom discussed:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0512b90c8dc558bed94908b1424b72e877bea5ac147179926531e8d9770caf5e.jpg

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Yep, it’s the guys… especially for violent offenses.

      2. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Are these people being asked what sex they identify as, or are government officials making assumptions about them?

        …

  11. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    If that is your only test, then you only need to look at one category (simple assault) to judge whether violent crime is up or down overall. It is orders of magnitude more common than any others so where it goes so goes the total. All other trends in all other violent crimes are meaningless. Does that seem like a reasonable evaluation of this data to you?

  12. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    An interesting comparison in number of employees/officers between this year and last. Slight drop across the board with an increase in female officers in cities… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2eef41fbbe78e88a70d8bff865ceeeb4ccc583e7d92f7b2d4882b6aa3614b50a.jpg

  13. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Nope. Do the numbers. For the violent index crimes (murder/nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible sex crimes, aggravated assault, and robbery), the increase in aggravated assault was offset by decreases in the other three. The 2022 rate for those crimes was 273.82; for 2023–272.44. Not much of a decrease, but a decrease, nonethelsss.

    Moreover, the rates for burglary and larceny, the other crimes that people fret about, were down.

    You are right, however, about overall crime. The overall crime rate for 2022 was 4,748.34 per 100,000 population and for 2023, it was 4,853.18. The increase seemed to have been driven by increases in simple assault, destruction of property, fraud, and drug crimes.

  14. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    Federal and state laws require that a gun purchaser pass a background check (for a total of two). The federal government uses the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The Commonwealth uses VCheck, which is part of the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program (VFTP).

    And it is not "just" a background check. It is a thorough search of federal and state criminal databases, and lying on one of the forms is a felony.

    Some people consider the background check an infringement of their 2nd amendment rights. I do not, so I cannot answer your last question.

  15. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    Minimum legal barrel length on a shotgun is 18". Put a rifled barrel on it and it can be as short as 16". Turn it into a pistol with some rifling in the barrel and it can be as short as you want it to be.

    I have (or, rather, had) a two-shot .410 derringer with a pair of 4.25" barrels. The last 1/2" at the end of each barrel is rifled, so it is classified as a pistol and not a shotgun.

    https://www.bondarms.com/bond-arms-handguns/snake-slayer-iv/

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      these all sound like restrictions on my right to bear arms….

  16. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    It sounds like the 2A does not give reasons that you can infringe on it. RIght? It sounds like an
    absolute Constitutional RIght. But we KNOW that , that right CAN be infringed upon, So I’m asking
    what laws allow that and why aren’t those laws violations of the Constitution.

    re: “I know you do not like the idea of gun owners being protected by due process, but they are.”

    Nope. Not any more than any other of the Constitutional “rights”. None are absolute without equivocation.

    We DO actually “infringe” on “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    So I’m asking how do we decide what things we can do or not and how can any restrictions not be
    a violation of the clear statement that ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”?

    It looks like we’ve made up restrictions that do “infringe”.

  17. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I’m saying they all say things but unless they actually propose it as legislation , it’s “talk”. Trump says wacko things like bleach and “shoot them in their legs” but the bigger problem with him is we KNOW some of the
    things he says because the GOP in Congress is also saying it – like “repeal and replace Obamacare” or a wide range of other things he promises to do AND he has verbal support from the GOP on.

  18. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    Homicides are down but aggravated assaults are up. Does that mean that murderers are getting less competent? Will they get better with practice?

  19. Bedfordboy Avatar
    Bedfordboy

    The Supreme Court has provided a lot of guidance that you may find useful to review.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/gun-rights/

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      They have indeed but my point is that the 2A, despite it’s words , does not allow anyone to buy any arms. In fact
      those “rights” HAVE been “infringed” greatly.

      It’s been “interpreted” by the courts and courts can and have changed their minds over time, including SCOTUS.

      We already say that certain people cannot have weapons. THe list of reasons why are not in the Constitutions but in laws that essentially DO “infringe” on the “right” to own arms. A law that says that people who have made statements that they will kill – should be a reason to deny owning a weapon, in my view. It’s no more
      an “infringement” that the numerous other restrictions that were put in place and apparently _are_ constitutional.

      1. Bedfordboy Avatar
        Bedfordboy

        Your view of the meaning of "infringe" in the Second Amendment context is simplistic, and I don't mean that sarcastically. Forests have been cut down to provide sufficient paper to debate and discuss the proper technique to divine the intent of the drafters. I believe Scalia got it right in Heller, and his analytically rigorous framework holds to this day. The case is in the link above and is informative reading. It also gives guidance to legislators with sufficient wit to understand his reasoning where proposed legislation crosses the "infringement" line. In today's world that's a small club.

  20. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    It’s the cops… so I doubt they ask gender identity questions…

  21. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    They stipulate your gender identity on your driver’s license…?

  22. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “…if Kamala Harris becomes president she will be coming for my guns.”

    How?

    “She has repeatedly stated her support for a federal mandatory gun buy back program”

    Mandatory gun buyback programs are for illicitly owned guns. It give the owner of illicit guns the ability to sell them to the government with penalties if they don’t. Since I am positive you own no illicit guns, this program would not pertain to you. Having a hard time why someone would be against such a program. Surely reducing illicit gun ownership is a worthy goal.

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      Mandatory gun buyback programs are for illicitly owned guns.

      No. Voluntary gun "buy back" programs are intended to take illicitly owned guns off the street. We have never had a mandatory buyback program in the United States.

      https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/gun-buyback-programs.html#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20nearly,of%20firearms%20in%20a%20community.

      Your attempt at cleverly worded obfuscations does not fool me.

      Making a widely-owned type of firearm "illicit" by, say, banning it, and then instituting an unprecedented mandatory buy-back program for that type of firearm might allow you to condescendingly pontificate on matters about which you are ignorant, but it does not change the truth about what Kamala Harris and her fellow democrats want to do.

      Kamala Harris wants to both ban a widely-owned type of firearm and institute a mandatory buyback program for that type of firearm. That is the same thing as confiscation no matter what you say, or how you incorrectly define "mandatory buyback".

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “No. Voluntary gun “buy back” programs are intended to take illicitly owned guns off the street. We have never had a mandatory buyback program in the United States.”

        “Mandatory gun buyback programs WOULD BE for illicitly owned guns.”

        Better…?

        “Kamala Harris wants to both ban a widely-owned type of firearm…”

        How does Harris make a type of firearm illicit?

        That question aside, if a gun is illicit, why would you not want programs designed to confiscate them (mandatory or voluntary)? I am pretty sure you do not support gun owners possessing illicit guns. Right?

        I think your issue is with the idea of outlawing new classes of weapons and I understand your position (if I don’t agree) but not so sure why mandatory buy back programs of illicit weapons in and of itself bothers you.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          Depends on what is defined as illicit and that depends on who's doing the defining.

          For example, Giggles & Tim the Honesty Moderator wrongly defining the most popular style of rifle as a "weapon of war" that should not be legal (illicit) is an example of how that process can go wrong.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            We have checks and balances in place to protect against processes going wrong. Again, if a class of weapon is made illicit through our legislative process and that law passes constitutional review, why would we oppose a program designed to remove them from circulation with minimal financial impact to their owners? Sorry, it does not matter who wrote the law.

  23. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Read the words. What else could they mean and who would decide what else they mean?
    They apparently are "interpreted" by lawmakers and courts, right?

    who decides what "arms" you can have and not have?

    who decides who can have "arms" and not have them?

    We have laws written and passed that make those determinations, right?

    re: " I believe Scalia got it right in Heller"

    This is one guy's opinion of something that is not vague at all. He's making up out of whole cloth what he "thinks" was meant. Any number of others could do the same "look" and come up with a different interpretation.

    Who decides what the LIMITS of the restrictions(infringements) are and are not?'

    The whole thing is a matter of opinion as opposed to it being laid out in absolute terms in the Constitution as a "right" than cannot be "infringed". It can and is.

  24. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    My point is that the words of the amendment specify no restrictions so how does one determine what are or are not restrictions that comport with the words of the amendment?

    It’s arbitrary opinion.

    For instance, who said that you can deny arms to someone who received a dishonorable discharge from the military? And how does one determine that such a restriction is a valid “restriction” or not? Does it boil down to whatever a given SCOTUS believes? And how do they justify their decision if the words of the amendment clearly say “shall not be infringed”?

    Or the amendment actually was saying that such a “right” was actually in order for the govt to
    create and maintain a militia – as opposed to independent “rights” to “arms”.

    So, we’re basically making up laws with zero basis for them and SCOTUS appears to be doing nothing really different – just pulling up their “beliefs” as to what those words actually mean in terms of what restrictions are valid or not.

    Which can change. It just depends who is on the SCOTUS and what their opinions are, A vote.

  25. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Let me ask. If you are convicted of a felony such as owning guns illegally, what happens to the guns you own?

  26. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    Investigating a threat made against someone, arresting those the evidence indicates are responsible for the threats, and charging them with the appropriate crime is due process, Larry – especially when followed up with a fair trial.

  27. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I support the process. If SCOTUS rules differently, I support it no matter how others might want to characterize it. I support the way the country IS governed, laws and courts.

  28. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    But any/all guns are taken away?

  29. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    The background check ensures the applicant is not banned from owning guns due to past criminal convictions and/or mental health adjudications. It obviously cannot reveal whether someone threatened someone else immediately before they fill out the form.

    Again, due process.

  30. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    is the background check itself an “infringement” since the 2A says flat out “shall not be infringed”? Seems
    like once it is ruled that SOME “infringements” ARE allowed, it becomes about who decides which ones
    are allowed and the “who” can change over the years as new justices are picked and old ones cycle off.

  31. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    take …. bump stocks…. clear “right” or will it be “interpreted”? automatic weapons? clear “right” to own?

    “On June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision, reasoning that a bump-stock device does not meet the statutory definition of a “machinegun” and that in issuing a contrary rule, ATF exceeded its statutory authority”

    Where did the “statutory definition” come from and does it “infringe” ?

    Who gave ATF that authority in the first place? Is it possible that SCOTUS will take
    away that authority under the Chevron decision that seems to say that Federal Agencies lack authority to
    make regulations that are not actually in law, and in turn invalidate all the ATF regulations since many of
    them seem to be clear infringements not in actual law and not ruled on by SCOTUS?

    It looks to me that SCOTUS is arbitrarily deciding what is and what is not since that distinction is not
    in the text of the 2A.

  32. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    I know and I am as well. You are conflating sex with gender identity (as often happens). One is identified and documented on one’s DL (sex that is), the other is not (as far as I can tell).

  33. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    I think your issue is with the idea of outlawing new classes of weapons

    No, my concern is Ms. Harris and her fellow democrats outlawing existing classes of weapons.

    not so sure why mandatory buy back programs of illicit weapons in and of itself bothers you.

    Because what is not illicit today can be made illicit by a democrat regime.

    Let me ask you this: Since 1960, has there been any proposed federal gun ban that the democrat party opposed? The answer is no. The democrat position is "Saturday night special"? Ban them. Handguns? Ban them. So-called assault weapons? Ban them. So called "ghost" guns? Ban them. So-called "assault" weapons (again)? Ban them.

    You do know the story of the frog in a pot of water on the stove, right?

  34. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Clearly, it is not specified in the 2A. It’s a made up thing that functions to infringe the “right” in a variety of ways and those ways can be (and are) changed also and then we have folks who claim to be “texualtists” , “interpreting” what the 2A actually meant. Totally the opinion of individual men claiming to know what was meant but not specified in the amendment out of whole cloth.

  35. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    yes, the arbitrary opinion of a group of people who differed from the group that preceded them and
    may well be overturned by those that follow them – as it is clear the decision is arbitrary, created out of
    whole cloth and cannot be found in the text of the Constitution.

  36. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    When the supreme court decided the bump stock case, they did not arbitrarily do anything. They looked at the precise definition of machine gun included the 1934 National Firearms Act. They correctly determined that a bump stock does not fit that definition, and they ruled that the ATF had improperly banned bump stocks.

    It was a straightforward legal decision based on the actual content of the law.

    The only arbitrary behavior was on the part of the ATF, and the dissenting members of the supreme court who acted illogically by ignoring the definition of a machine gun contained in the law.

    Congress gave the ATF the powers that it has. If congress wants the ATF to have additional powers then congress should pass law(s) giving them additional powers.

  37. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    Congress. Because congress is the only entity which can pass federal laws.

    I would have thought you already knew that…

  38. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Not playing “gotcha”, just asking because I’m really largely ignorant and looking up “gun” things on
    the internet is a real conundrum, though having said that, not entirely sure you are an 100% authoritative
    and unbiased source either, but I do ask. I’m not the “anti-gun” guy you seem to have in your mind, either.
    I have no problem, whatsoever, with anyone and everyone who wants to , to have a weapon for defensive purposes especially in one’s home but I also don’t like seeing innocents/kids slaughtered because we
    can’t seem to agree on keeping guns away from such killers (that we KNOW they are, virtually right after
    they do it). But that’s a far distance from the gun right zealots who talk of ” regimes” and anti-govt rhetoric, and such.

  39. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    well, now that the POTUS has almost unlimited immunity, sure…

    Just imagine the possibilities if the Dems win again! 😉

  40. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I HAVE “offered” such a plan AND I’ve pointed out that “due process” is NOT a requirement for rules, such as for Free Speech restrictions, and such. Rules such as restricting machine guns did not require “due process” so other, additional rules for similar deadly weapons would not either. We can say – the background check must include a search of PUBLIC statements made that can be construed as threats. We do that right now with other things like protective orders. If it requires a judge, so be it, but stop selling deadly weapons capable of killing many people in a short amount of time (like machine guns) to people with a public record of threats to kill others. Find a way to make it work and stop making excuses and essentially enabling killers.
    ‘

  41. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    So you support ignoring the duly enacted laws of our country even after they pass constitutional muster… Fits right in with your current favored candidate.

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT