BY MIKE CETERA
The city of Aurora trumpeted it's latest crime statistics last week, something unusual for a town that has in the past taken a PR beating in this regard.
And while the overall decrease is a positive, the last line in Staff Writer Matt Hanley's story caught my eye: "Last year's reduction in major crimes mirrors a national drop in crime rates."
Really? Crime is dropping everywhere? Why is this?
Here's what the FBI had to say in releasing preliminary 2007 numbers several months ago (I haven't seen the final numbers):
Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 1.8 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention in the first half of 2007 when compared with figures reported for the first six months of 2006. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2007 decreased 2.6 percent when compared with data from the same time period in 2006. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2007 indicate that arson decreased 9.7 percent in the first half of the year when compared to 2006 figures for the same time period.
In cities roughly the same size as Aurora (see population 100,000 to 249,000), violent crime and murders increased, while most other crime categories saw drops. Just like Aurora.
Why, in particular, did property crimes drop?
Aurora saw an 11 percent decline in burglaries. From the Beacon story: "Residential burglaries also fell by 11 percent after police targeted that issue, handing out thousands of reminders to residents who went to bed with their garage doors open or left valuables in their car."
Here's what NPR had to say in a recent story about the downward trend in burglaries:
Of course, police say burglaries have gone down because they police better. There's no way to know whether police are preventing burglaries, but they're certainly not catching many burglars. According to the Justice Department, police solve fewer burglaries than any other crime, around one in every 10. They're more likely to catch a car thief than a burglar.
Here's a take from Time magazine about the decline in violent crime rates (although it's probably applicable to property crimes as well):
"What goes up comes down," said James Alan Fox, a leading criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston. "But in big cities, there was more room to drop, and in small cities there was more room to go up. And that may be what we're seeing here." Wherever there's a 20% spike, as Boston saw not long ago, he says, there's "a better than two-to-one chance homicides will fall the next year."Not everyone believes it's just the laws of gravity, or the laws of supply and demand, that account for peaks and valleys in the crime rate. "The relationship between the economy and crime has never been well understood or clear-cut," says Arthur Lurigio, a criminal justice professor at Loyola University in Chicago. "The changes in law enforcement policies and significant declines in homicides cannot be ignored or dismissed as coincidence or fluke. Policing has become more strategic and smarter than it has ever been."
Are these fair assessments or is there another reason why crime dropped?
Supported by this part of your newspaper, I do not feel safer if these crimes have gone up. There are significant problems in the neighborhoods that are being glossed over (including by the Beacon) in order to make this Mayor look good. Statistics do not show anything, it is the people who live here that can tell you the statistics are garbage.
"There were more murders, violent crimes, batteries and burglaries last year in Aurora. The number of thefts, vehicle thefts, arsons, robberies and criminal sexual assaults dropped. Police said a significant drop in property offenses led to 6.5 percent fewer crimes being reported than 2006"
Beacon-News continues to lose credibility with stories like this and being a cheerleader for a mayor in turmoil.
Violent crime, shootings and murders have increased under Tom Weisner.
Seems to me this is just the Weisner camp's POLITICAL attempt to deal with their failure on crime while Alderman Rick Lawrence is getting awards like from the Illinois State Crime Commission.
Beacon should know better.
CETERA REPLIES:
You wrote: "Violent crime, shootings and murders have increased under Tom Weisner."
The story said: "There were more murders, violent crimes, batteries and burglaries last year in Aurora."
-- and --
"Violent crimes were up 7 percent in Aurora, partly because of a rise from four to 12 murders in 2007. And for the second year in a row, aggravated assaults jumped by more than 10 percent."
-- and --
"According to police, since 1992, violent crime is down 9.7 percent and property crime is down 20.5 percent.
Since 1997, violent crime has decreased 4.83 percent, and property crime is down 11.64 percent.
Over the last five years, violent crime has risen 4.96 percent, however. Property crime in that same time period dropped 15.37 percent, police said."
Seems like the story points out what you seem to think the story doesn't point out. Several times in fact.
Cetera, the Beacon's story headline read:
CRIME FALLS 6 PERCENT IN '07
The coordinated editorial headline read:
AURORA KEEPS GETTING SAFER AS CITY GROWS
Both of the above headlines are completely misleading. We know violent crime, shootings and murders increased in 2007. And to address your point about nationwide statistics, while violent crime has been going down nationwide, it's going UP in Aurora under Weisner.
In my opinion, considering how serious violent crime is an issue for Aurora, your paper was not only misleading, but irresponsible in the way you presented the "facts." How can the newspaper of a city that just experienced an increase in violent crime be so foolish to write an editorial that says we "Aurora keeps getting safer...?"
Most people believe the Beacon is biased and this crime article and editorial prove that again. I welcome your proof to the contrary.
CETERA REPLIES:
Here's the headline and the subhed right below it:
"Crime falls 6 percent in '07
Aurora's lowest rate since '85: Though violent offenses increase, property crimes nosedive"
Seems to sum up the whole story, doesn't it?
But wait. Let's address our "bias" by looking at what other "old media" wrote in their headlines:
Daily Herald: "Aurora crime at 22-year low" (can't find a subhed online)-- Violent crime uptick first mentioned in the sixth paragraph (third paragraph in the Beacon's story).
Kane County Chronicle: "Aurora police: crime down" (can't find a subhed online) -- Violent crime uptick first mentioned in the fifth paragraph
ABC7.COM: "Crime rate drops in Aurora" -- Violent crime uptick mentioned in the lead paragraph
The Associated Press: "Police: Crime reports reach new low in suburb of Aurora" -- Violent crime uptick mentioned in the fourth paragraph.
Did everyone get it wrong?
Next, let's address the editorial. You correctly cite the headline, but fail to point out the context. It is the editorial board's belief based on the data showing fewer reports of crimes and more people living in Aurora that the city is, in fact, statistically a safer place to live now than it was in 1985. That's the gist of the editorial. Do you have some other data to reference?
Finally, let's address your assertion that "while violent crime has been going down nationwide, it's going UP in Aurora under Weisner." I think the jury is still out on that one. Violent crime has increased under the Weisner administration (and the story pointed that out). But while violent crime nationwide decreased (it increased in towns the size of Aurora) through the first half of 2007, we don't yet have the full year of data. And in 2006, violent crime increased by 1.9 percent nationwide. It's too early to tell what the recent national trend is.
I am interested in knowing who wrote the opinion piece, “Aurora keeps getting safer as city grows;” as it seems to portray this matter in a more favorable light. Now the article written by Matt Hanley, “Crime falls 6 percent in '07,” provides more of the factual details; causing the reader—hopefully a resident of Aurora—to question “whether or not Aurora is safer than last year.”
Jaimie maybe you ought to actually read the articles and even better attempt to understand them. There is a lot of crime that dramatically affects people other than just violent crime. Crime has been reduced. Quote "Most people believe the Beacon is biased and this crime article and editorial prove that again." End Quote You made this ridiculous assertion, you prove it. Don't ask someone else to do your work. What's obvious here to me is your bizarre hatred for Mayor Weisner.
We forget that we aren’t some little town, we are the second largest city in Illinois – and the Midwest drop off for drugs. The reason the crime has gone down a bit is because the feds have been enlisted in the process. I know this because I come from a long line of APD family. Under state laws, we can only do so much, the feds have a lot more jurisdiction and a lot more room to bend to bust the criminals than the state does. It’s made a dramatic difference.
Cetera, isn't it odd you have to use the SUB headline to avoid dealing with the misleading nature of the MAIN headline? The question remains why would a credible newspaper put ANY headline implying crime is going down when it know violent crime, the kind that is the core of the problem for people, is going UP?
Then, as if somehow the fact other "old media" were irresponsible enough to follow whatever press release was sent, only makes it worse for the Beacon-News, who should KNOW BETTER than other media since you guys supposedly cover this town regularly and they do not.
If you had a headline saying "VIOLENT CRIME UP IN 2007 UNDER TOM WEISNER" that would have been accurate and reporting facts.
I think it's pretty clear there is a bias for Weisner by your paper. I'm not saying you should unfairly attack him like you did to Lawrence recently, but when you already have a serious credibility question on covering City Hall, one would think that you guys wouldn't make such blatant mistakes as you did on this story.
I am just wondering where the support for Nico Contreras and Mike Niles was at the last day of trial. No Mayor, Chief presence nor any of the fellow officers who worked this case over the years. Where is the support at? There has been about 20 years of this mayhem and we still can't unite. This is our community and we should take it back, but can we with a police department that shows a lack of interest in what could be the conclusions to a very violent era in Aurora's History. Why should victims, witnesses or snitches for that matter put themselves out there if the police department won't. I am wondering what the count is from the first gang related murder to now is and what the solved/unsolved ratio is. Then how many of those solved murders went to trial verses pled out. How many went to trial and was won verses lost. Maybe even publish like the Beacon use to in the 90's at the end of the year theyt would publish all of the Murders, Solved and Unsolved. I wonder how big of a section it would be. Or maybe somebody could come up with a Scorecard so we can keep track of who is wining this war on Gangs. Maybe we can make it more competive for our police department to feel more like a team and we will see more team spirit.