Two Fact Checks on Donald Trump and Crime

In tonight’s speech, Donald Trump will accept the presidential nomination of the Republican party. The text of Trump’s speech makes the following claims regarding crime in the United States:

“These are the facts:

“Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this Administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement.

“Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years.”

Let’s look at these two claims and check the facts.

Fact Check of Claim 1: “Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this Administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement.”

Response: The annual FBI report Crime in the United States provides the most recent data on crime, both in the United States overall and in particular communities. Annual reports are released every fall to describe crime in the year before, based on direct reports of police officers all over the country (the delay occurs because it takes time to gather all those reports and carefully tabulate them). The most recent report was released in 2015, describing crime in the year 2014. Anyone who tells you they know about U.S. national crime trends for any more recent year is fibbing — because 2016 isn’t over yet, and because final counts for 2015 are still being worked on.

The trends on violent and property crime victimization rates in the United States are shown below, from the very first page of the 2015 Crime in the United States report, released at the end of September 2015:

violent and property victimization rates in the United States from 1993 to 2014

People can disagree about policy, but it is not possible for policy changes to have led to a reversal in progress in the crime rate in the United States, because there is no evidence that such a reversal exists.

Fact Check of Claim 2: “Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years.”

We don’t actually know whether this is the case, because final data for 2015 is not yet available. A preliminary count, that is not a final count, that is only for the first six months of 2015, and that is only for cities with over 100,000 in population — has been released. Here it is. Let’s realize, based on this data (look at Table 4), that:

First, we do not yet actually have a final count for 2015.

Second, on the basis that only the first six months of 2015 have been counted, it is not possible to make the conclusion that Donald Trump makes regarding the entire year.

Third, if we actually look at the fifty largest cities in the United States, and look at the preliminary count for the first six months of 2015 (not the entire year), we find that the homicides are up 8.4% in America’s fiftiest largest cities compared to 2014 — Donald Trump’s speech claims twice as much as this.

Fourth, it’s interesting that the speech only focuses on homicide, and not on violent crime in general. The increase in the violent crime rate from 2014 to 2015 is 3.1%.

Fifth, even these rises do not take into account the rise in population of America’s fifty largest cities, increasing the population, which will of course increase the number of murders.

Sixth, even this increase, in the context of the huge falls of the last twenty years, still marks a low crime rate in America’s fifty largest cities in recent history. The preliminary homicide rate in the fifty largest cities of the United States in the first six months of 2015 was 4.06 homicides per 100,000 people. In the first six months of 2015, the overall violent crime rate was 305.7 per 100,000 people. By comparison, in 2008, when Barack Obama was elected president and the decline in homicides was already well underway, the homicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000 people in America’s 50 largest cities, and the overall violent crime rate was per 852.9 per 100,000 people. In other words, since Barack Obama became president, if the 2015 preliminary data holds, the homicide rate is down 66.4% and the violent crime rate is down 64.2%.

It turns out that Donald Trump’s claim is based on a post made in very early estimate by a blogger using very early data in January 2016, less than a month after 2015 ended.

This second claim by Republican nominee Donald Trump, like the first, is not supported by the facts.

Another Season, Another Public Figure Self-Immolates with Plagiarism

Another season, another new public plagiarism case.

It’s not a partisan thing. A different season, a different public plagiarism case:

David Greenberg: Why Biden’s plagiarism shouldn’t be forgotten.”

Students, listen up: Of course there are moral implications when you steal others’ words and pass them off as your own. Of course the choice to plagiarize keeps you shallow because you haven’t bothered to do the work of thinking for yourself. Even if you don’t care about that, plagiarism is a horrible strategic choice. Your reputation will be destroyed. You’ll find yourself making the defense that you’re not malicious, “just” incompetent and sloppy. Any actual original work you do will be discounted. Your career will be stunted.

The best protection against plagiarism is to use your own brain to think up, then write, something truly original and your own. If you can’t manage that, then why are you writing or speaking in the first place? For written forms that require thorough research of others’ contributions — to which you then should add your own original thoughts — be polite: quote and cite. Although academic integrity policies can take many words to express the standard, avoiding plagiarism really is that simple.

A tip of the hat to journalist Jarrett Hill for uncovering the latest in intellectual theft.

Presentation Materials for Twitter Adoption in U.S. Legislatures at #SMSociety 2016 Conference

The following are links to supporting materials for the presentation “Twitter Adoption in U.S. Legislatures: A Fifty-State Study” made to the 2016 International Conference on Social Media & Society on Wednesday, July 13 at Goldsmiths, University of London.

1. Free full-text access:

ACM DL Author-ize serviceTwitter Adoption in U.S. Legislatures: A Fifty-State Study

James M. Cook
SMSociety ’16 Proceedings of the 7th 2016 International Conference on Social Media & Society, 2016

2. Download Powerpoint Presentation Slides from presentation

3. Abstract: This study draws theoretical inspiration from the literature on Twitter adoption and Twitter activity in United States legislatures, applying predictions from those limited studies to all 7,378 politicians serving across 50 American state legislatures in the fall of 2015. Tests of bivariate association carried out for individual states lead to widely varying results, indicating an underlying diversity of legislative environments. However, a pooled multivariate analysis for all 50 states indicates that the number of constituents per legislator, district youth, district level of educational attainment, legislative professionalism, being a woman, sitting in the upper chamber, holding a leadership position, and legislative inexperience are all significantly and positively associated with Twitter adoption and Twitter activity. Controlling for these factors, legislator party, majority status, partisan instability, district income, and the percent of households in a state with an Internet connection are not significantly related to either Twitter adoption or recent Twitter use. A significant share of variation in social media adoption by legislators remains unexplained, leaving considerable room for further theoretical development and the development of contingent historical accounts.

Please feel free to review these materials before or after my presentation. I look forward to your comments.