Chicago is one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S.

Question

Looking through this article the information that is here is a year old. So the progress of it may have changed throughout the years and it is true it has changed throughout the year. As of now Washington D.C, Baltimore, Chattanooga, Dallas, Memphis, and Nashville is experiencing higher rates then Chicago in 2024.

Answer 1

This article does a poor job of making any argument. The article provides data about homicide rates and over crime rates in several major cities around the United States. The article states that Chicago hasn't had the same homicide rate drop that L.A. and New York have had since the 90's. While this is true, it doesn't include much context, which the article briefly mentions when it states, "Los Angeles made a lot of police reforms that Chicago is just trying to do and New York never quite had the gang situation that L.A. and Chicago had." The article doesn't explain much context nor does it provide many other major cities. I think it's significant that it left out information about the history of all the cities, the fact that some other major cities had significant drops in violence due to the stopping the mafia and gang related violence. It also doesn't clearly define how its going to measure violence, and even if it did, violence is interpreted different and has inherent bias. In murder rates, Chicago is 20th, far behind cities such as St. Louis and Baltimore. (Per World Population Review). In all, the article provides little evidence as to why or how Chicago is one of the most violent cities in the U.S.

Comments

Hi aumland28, do you have other sources proving your point instead of just saying a claim based on one article? I found one source backing up the claim that Chicago is the most dangerous city. As it stated here in an article by Security.org, "Chicago had the most murders among all cities with 653, nearly double the second-highest city, Baltimore." Which I believe is a pretty good piece of evidence proving a point. Let me know what you think, doing some more research.

-https://www.security.org/resources/most-dangerous-cities/#:~:text=Chicago%20had%20the%20most%20murders,310%2C000%2C%20comes%20in%20at%20No.

Answer 2

After evaluating the article given, it is very unclear in the article where it mentions anything regarding Chicago being the most dangerous city. They do have indirect ways to say Chicago is dangerous, but it doesn't mention anything about it being "the most dangerous city." An example I seen in the article says "Chicago, like all other major cities, has areas that have higher crime rates than others." I found another quote that doesn't make me believe this statement is factual, for example, the article claimed "“While Chicago does have higher violent crime rates compared to the national average, other cities such as Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Chattanooga, Dallas, Memphis, Nashville, are experiencing higher rates of crime than Chicago." This proves that this statement can be misleading. I tried searching the the quote on the web, and nothing came up for this quote or similar. This makes me wonder where this quote could have come from. 

Comments

It's always best to dig further and find academic or news sources on the topic rather than rely on the claim's source.

Answer 3

This article tries to compare Chicago's crime rates to other US cities, but it's missing a lot of context. It claims cities like Washington D.C., Baltimore, and Nashville have higher murder rates per capita than Chicago, but doesn't back this up with recent data. Checking FBI and World Population Review stats shows that while cities like Baltimore and Memphis often rank high in murder rates, Dallas does not. This article also says that Chicago has “higher violent crime than the national average” but does not mention that most of this violence is concentrated in just a few neighborhoods, something common in many big cities. It mentions that cities like LA and New York city reduced crime through reforms, but doesn't explain what those were or why they worked. So while some points are valid, the article could be more balanced by including specific data and clearer context.

Comments

Always provide source hyperlinks! Thanks!

Answer 4

This article uses statistics that are out of context and that puts a much higher target on Chicago than what is reality. The statistics that are used are true and come from reputable sources but the article does not talk about things like demographics of people living in these cities or resources provided. New York has had resources to decrease crime rates that Chicago did not and Chicago has more lower income areas than other big cities. The claim is an oversaturation that is easy to "prove" since Chicago is one of the largest cities in the country.

Answer 5

The overall idea of crime rates in major U.S. cities falls onto many different factors such as homicide rates, drug use, robbery, burglary, etc. According to the Council on Criminal Justice, Chicago's homicide count is 66 halfway through 2024, compared to other major cities such as Detroit (26), New York (31), and Philadelphia (23). In terms of drug offenses, Chicago's count is 434, compared to Detroit (51) and Philadelphia (224). Lastly, Chicago's residential burglary count is 363 compared to Philadelphia's 296 and San Francisco's 156. So, overall Chicago can be considered considerably more dangerous in terms of reported crime halfway through 2024.  

Answer 6

The article provided never actually calls Chicago the most dangerous city in the country. It even mentions in the article that other cities have higher rates of crime than Chicago. According to the websites bestdiplomat.org and mirasafety.com, Detroit is the city in the US with the highest crime rate. I think they might have messed up their wording or statistics, because on security.org it mentions Chicago had the most murders among all cities during their study.

Answer 7

The article highlights issues like neighborhood inequalities and police reforms as reasons why Chicago's homicide rate is not declining as quickly as it is in New York and Los Angeles. Some statements require context even though they are valid. The argument that New York's crime rate was impacted by its "broken windows" and stop-and-frisk policies, for instance, ignores the contentious effects these practices have on minority communities (www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-new-york.html). Furthermore, additional information on redlining and economic disinvestment could support the idea that Chicago's violence is concentrated in particular neighborhoods as a result of historical housing policies (www.history.com/topics/black-history/redlining). Given conflicting data regarding public support and police effectiveness, it is worthwhile to weigh the influence of police-community relations that Jim McDonnell mentioned (www.brookings.edu/research/how-public-confidence-in-police-impacts-crime-reduction).

Comments

Is the claim true, false, or other? It's unclear based on your fact-check.