1) Do not think they will be caught

2) Do not think about the consequences of a crime before they commit it

Finally, even if they know there is a chance that they will be caught, they know the chance will be slim (for 90% all crimes)

Why would someone care if they get death or 100 years in prison for murder if they don't think they will be caught!

In fact, punishment is all about retribution and detainment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by superdave:
For someone who claims to argue for all positions, you always choose the same one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by superdave:
It really has no relevance to this particular topic, Im just making an observation. Correct me if Im wrong, but from your past posts, you claim to not have any particular political affiliation, yet all of your views and ideas seem to come from the left or liberal wing of the political spectrum, as defined in American politics anyway, I think you said youre from Canada? Anyway, I just dont see how you can claim to argue from all sides when you consistently argue the same side regarding different topics. That shows that you have a specific political affiliation, which is ok to have.

---

Okay, you do not seem to know why I posted this. The recent posts about the 14-year-old that has been sentenced to life in prison have been overwhelmingly in support of harsher sentences for criminal acts.

This is in response to an overwhelming conservative (and irrational trend) towards harsher sentences.

I go against the dominant trend of the forum. The dominant trend happens to be conservative.

You shouldn't assume things without understanding the reasons for my actions.

------------------
"Now the World is gone I'm just One"

Timothy Buss murdered 5 year old Tara Sue Huffman in 1981 at the age of 13. He was sentenced to 25 years..he was paroled in 1993..read below to find out the rest of the story..My thoughts..fuck this 14 year old..put him away for life...

quote:

---

Originally posted by thefantom1:
How many times have we read in the papers about someone who robbed, raped and killed another person while they were out on parole?? That person should not of been there to commit that act to begin with..but since the justice system here is screwed...he is out and able to take away someone elses life..

---

I lived in the US for 12 years so I can speak as an American.

I am sorry that you believe everything the media tells you. For every worthless piece of trash that is paroled and re-commits, there are at least 10,000 parolees that do not re-commit a criminal act after release.

The recidivism rate for parolees is actually pretty low. In fact, the crime rate has been steadily declining for the last 10 years (in the face of a rising population).

Extreme and dramatic examples only fool ignorant people. I know you are far too intelligent to fall into that trap.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Austin316:
What do you propose be done then? The only other sentence I would accept would be an excommunication from the country. We have enough trash as it is without Tate being let out at the ripe age of 18 only a better criminal. If you can prove that prison actually changes someone for the better, then by all means go ahead. I have heard much more in support that it only makes them a better criminal, not a better person.

---

The first step is community-based programs that will help prevent the environment that encourages criminal behavior.

Second, prison reform is necessary in order to stop making petty criminals into full-fledged sociopaths after going through a system that makes animals out of men. You know that people become better criminals in prison. They come out pissed off and more criminally skilled than when they went in. What do you expect them to do when they get back out into society stigmatized and angry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by thefantom1:
I don't fall into the media trap.. I work very closely with justice system... I see it all the time (for real..not in the media)of very dangerous people who are commit numerous felonies (violent felonies) and are released back into society and continue to comit more crimes..and for the 10,000 parolee's that you claim don't commit futher crimes...Are you saying its worth it to society that "only" 1 in 10,000 commit murder?? Ask Timothy Myers mother and father... He must of got caught by the "one"

---

Well if you work closely with the justice system, you will definitely be biased. I can't blame you for feeling the way you do. You only see the worst people in society (over and over again) on a regular basis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by thefantom1:
Im curious 2thick..what do you think should be done with violent criminals? Say an 21 year old man with no previous record..rapes and murders a woman (a stranger) and is caught and proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty..what should we do with him?

---

According to the Bill of Rights, every case should be tried on its merits. All of the facts have to be weighed and the punishment should match the severity of the crime.

If this 21-year-old person acted out of premeditated malice and had no remorse after the fact then he should be sentenced to with maximum amount of time for Rape in the 1st degree and Murder in the 1st degree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
and had no remorse after the fact

---

So, you believe that they should get a lesser punishment if they show regret after raping/murdering a woman?

quote:

---

Originally posted by HumanShell:
So, you believe that they should get a lesser punishment if they show regret after raping/murdering a woman?

Humanshell

---

Yes, people make mistakes. If they honestly admit they did something wrong then that should count for something.

------------------
- If you want 1 year of prosperity, grow grain. If you want 10 years of prosperity, grow trees. If you want 100 years of prosperity, grow people. -

For a good time click here: Search and Profiles (300Kleens Board)
Another fine board: Anabolic Fitness

quote:

---

For every worthless piece of trash that is paroled and re-commits, there are at least 10,000 parolees that do not re-commit a criminal act after release.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
They do not work because people:

---

Because they are rarely applied. Criminals get special treatment in our justice system and the victims get bend over in the courtroom.

They do not work on people because:

1) Plea bargains.
2) Parole.
3) A seemingly infinite number of appeals.
4) An eternity before the actual execution is carried out even if the criminal is not appealing.

You are guilty of a violent crime. You will not plea guilty and get a shorter sentence. You will not leave prison until all of your time has been served. You will not appeal one million times before you are executed. You will be executed within thirty days of your sentencing.

Tell me that won't work.

-Warik

------------------

I agree with you on the part about prison becoming a "criminal college." There is some truth to that. And I would be among the first to support decriminalization of most drugs, and lesser sentences for drug offenders.

But...is prison really MINDLESS vengeance? Or is it purposeful vengeance? Is it really mindless, to give someone 25 years for a homicide? Is it really mindless to segregate them from society? It is vengeance, but not mindless vengeance. Mindless vengeance would be throwing them to the lions as the Romans did.

"Reform" is a funny word. Describe what you think a "community-based reform program" would be. Because it sounds a lot like a euphemism for "create more civil service jobs". It sounds like "therapy" or "counseling", except that since the government would be paying, the employees would be civil servants. The relatively low salaries of government jobs leads to a relatively low quality employee. So you could theoretically have second rate counselors working with society's lower elements. But I'd like to hear your idea.

Is it really "media hype" to say that many parolees do commit further crimes. Sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate...I would like to see you give your "1 in 10,000" claim, some credibility.

And lastly, to your 21 year old who committed murder. What interest does society have in his "reform"? Why should we (society) commit our resources (tax dollars) to reforming him? Does he deserve that from us? Does he deserve re-education at MY expense, or vocational training? I say no...not no, but FUCK NO....and I would like to hear you explain why society should take an interest in his "reform".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Engine9:
Cites please.

---

In Canada: "2.7% of 7,800 convicts on early release committed serious crimes"

--Toronto Sun, Tuesday, August 15, 2000

BUT, on the other hand, I grew up in very much of an actions=consequences household. Or the old "eye for an eye"...similar, but not exact subscriptions.
I cannot subscribe to the notion that a criminal should not pay for his crime to the fullest extent of the law. Mind you , I might not be the right person to be argueing this....I think people who drink and drive and cause a death in an accident should be charged with murder....I'm pretty hardnosed about a "you play you pay" policy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
I would like to ask everyone why he keeps using the term "reform" as if I said anything about rehabilitation.

I have not used that term to please do not ascribe it to my post.

---

2Thick,

I said above that "reform" is a vague term. It can mean many things...to some, prison is reform, to others, it's rehabilitation, and there are many others. My interpretation of what you meant is exactly that. Until you describe what a "community based reform program is", don't get upset when it gets misinterpreted.

Is it counseling? Is it midnight basketball? Is it work-release? Don't be ambiguous on this one.

Also, 250 of 10,000 is far higher than 1 in 10,000. That's a jump from .01% all the way to 2.5%. Instead of 1 in 10,000, the real number is 1 in 40.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
The first step is community-based programs that will help prevent the environment that encourages criminal behavior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattTheSkywalker:

Also, 250 of 10,000 is far higher than 1 in 10,000. That's a jump from .01% all the way to 2.5%. Instead of 1 in 10,000, the real number is 1 in 40.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DocJ:
DocJ Rule of Life #104 - Never trust anyone who uses the word "community" in a sentence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warik:

1) Plea bargains.

The police and prosecutors almost always overcharge a defendant with numerous and mostly unfounded charges. The defendant is so scared of the possible sentence from all of these trumped up charges that he plea-bargains down to the actual crime that he has supposedly committed. That means that he serves time for his crime. There is no real break in plea-bargaining. TV is not the best source for that information.

2) Parole.
Unless you want to build more prisons or decriminalize drug offences (which uselessly crowd the prisons) then this is your best option. Stigma attached to parole is the real problem. If you treat someone like a criminal long enough then they will act like one.

3) A seemingly infinite number of appeals.
So you believe that the justice system is fair and objective...LOL...wrong. The appeals protect the innocent that are wrongly accused and convicted. Better for 1000 guilty men to go free then 1 innocent person go to prison (especially if that innocent person is you)!

4) An eternity before the actual execution is carried out even if the criminal is not appealing.

Once again, it is better to make 100% sure that this person is guilty. You cannot reverse an execution.

You are guilty of a violent crime. You will not plea guilty and get a shorter sentence. You will not leave prison until all of your time has been served. You will not appeal one million times before you are executed. You will be executed within thirty days of your sentencing.

You would have loved to live in the days of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Your ideal system was in place there and then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Austin316:
I think murderers and rapists should be seperated from the lesser criminals and put in a prison like Arcatrez. Also if an inmate attacks a gaurd, jacks off on a gaurd, etc. The gaurd should be able to retaliate with extreme force, maybe not with a gun, but if they happen to kill the inmate with their nightstick as a result of the retaliation, all the better

---

Prisons for extreme criminals (such as ones that attack guards and kill other inmates) exist. They have 23-hour lock-up and 1 hour of solitary exercise time.

Look at young babies. The one who has weak minded parents are the same babies screaming and crying in the store. And the same babies that grow up to be on Jerry Springer...

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrbill:
2thick...as stated by someone previously for someone who "claims" to have an open mind and debate all sides of an issue your perspective is extremely one-sided. There is nothing wrong with having strong opinions based on a single perspective, but you should not delude yourself into thinking you are so "open minded" as opposed to those you debate. You frequently claim those that debate the opposing side of an issue are being mislead by the media, sterotypes, etc., while you fail to see that your own perspective is just as skewed. I find it amusing that many who most ferverently claim to be non-biased are in fact the most biased. I realize that none of this will in any way make you more "open-minded" as you will have some internal perspective that will justify all your positions. I am only stating this as an observation, not as any form of attack on your positions or character. Peace.

---

Once again, arguing a point does not make one biased. It makes the person consistent. If I were to change my view in mid-debate then there would be no reason to begin the debate in the first place

If you haven't noticed, I argue the least favorite position. This board happens to be mostly conservative. I therefore argue opposite the conservative platform.

Just because I argue a point does not mean I believe in it.

If you would like, I will do a 180-degree turn and argue against myself. I don't do it because it would be like preaching to the converted. It would just be too easy to say that criminals are bad and they need to suffer. It is harder to argue that the worst people in society also needs rights and need to be treated like humans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:

I am sorry that you believe everything the media tells you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:

In Canada: "2.7% of 7,800 convicts on early release committed serious crimes"

--Toronto Sun, Tuesday, August 15, 2000

---

LOL, how come you took your information out of a newspaper? That's the media. Try sticking to your word, not your propoganda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 23 Gauge:
LOL, how come you took your information out of a newspaper? That's the media. Try sticking to your word, not your propoganda.

---

Nice try but that newspaper used a direct quote. I was asked for citations and that was one that I knew was true but it was a secondary source. If you would like I can find the actual study it was cited from.

Before you reply please try to understand what you are trying to prove. Otherwise you will look foolish...oops, too late...

quote:

---

Originally posted by 23 Gauge:
2Thick, you have a comeback for everything don't ya? You're like that annoying little kid that always says "you're it". Go get the source for that figure, and get back to me. Til then, see ya later left-winger propaganda king.

---

Well if you consider making you look stupid a "comeback for everything" then I am guilty as charged.

2Thick, I am willing to bet you are actually a pretty smart guy in real life that just portrays yourself as an idiot to sound funny via the net, right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 23 Gauge:

2Thick, I am willing to bet you are actually a pretty smart guy in real life that just portrays yourself as an idiot to sound funny via the net, right?

---

now go find that source that was quoted in that newspaper. I still don't buy your bullshit story. See ya on the right wing.....er, no wait, you are the left-winger propaganda king spewing information that isn't true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:

Well if you consider making you look stupid a "comeback for everything" then I am guilty as charged.

Tag, you're it!

---

For example, if you committ forcible robbery, ie break into a house with people in it and then take something you have committed you have committed at least 4 crimes,
1. criminal tresspass
2. criminal damage to property
3. robbery
4. theft

You may also have battery, aggravated battery, aggravated robbery (if weapons involved and not just a gun, it could be the homeowners lamp) and so on. So, you see you will committ several felonies in addition to the main one you chose to committ.

I have watched and been involved in community programs such as community policing and such and yes they do work to a point, but you still have to be willing to lock up the individual when he committs and is convicted. Regardless of his remorse, if it is murder we are talking about or rape, or robbery or such those are not mistakes those are fuck ups and you need to be punished for it.

Average time spent in an LA jail for rape, 6 months. (LA county sheriff) Why, because the ACLU says they are overcrowded and the prisoners need their space. Over 70% of those early releases re rape within the year.

Prison is prison it is for punishment.

And don't tell me I am biased. I was a civilian a lot longer than a cop!

**Letting the media "control" you, for example, is saying, "All blacks are criminals," since most of what you see on T.V. are black criminals...that is illogical, and false. Now, quoting a news souce that says X% of African Americans are incarcerated, next to Y% of another group...that's using statistics...2 very different things...Quoting a source does not mean you back it 100%!! (The black-criminal example has no relevance to this thread per se, but was used as an analogy...)

2Thick: I have not been a cop, so I don't have the 1st hand knowledge that Chesty or some others do, but I still believe, logically, that harsher punishments/sentences for VIOLENT crimes are needed...1)so that the criminals suffer, 2)to work as a deterrent, and 3)to cut down on repeat offenders...

Chesty: That 6 month statistic is scary...

------------------
"It's a good day to be alive, sir, It's a good day to be alive he said..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
The police and prosecutors almost always overcharge a defendant with numerous and mostly unfounded charges. The defendant is so scared of the possible sentence from all of these trumped up charges that he plea-bargains down to the actual crime that he has supposedly committed. That means that he serves time for his crime. There is no real break in plea-bargaining. TV is not the best source for that information.

---

The problem is that he doesn't serve time for his crime. And there IS a real break in plea bargaining because the defendant will serve less time if he is found guilty than he would if he didn't plea bargain... that's the whole problem!

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
Unless you want to build more prisons or decriminalize drug offences (which uselessly crowd the prisons) then this is your best option. Stigma attached to parole is the real problem. If you treat someone like a criminal long enough then they will act like one.

---

I am in favor of decriminalizing drug usage (but not legalizing it). That is something that should be handled with a fine or community service. There is no need to fill a prison with such people.

The real problem with parole is parole. The whole concept of parole is a spit in the face of our justice system. So you go off and commit a violent crime. Murder? Armed robbery? Rape? Who cares... you behaved like a good boy in prison so you get to go free. It's absurd. The judge didn't say: "I hereby sentence you to be incarcerated until you can learn to be a nice boy!" He said life/30 years/20 years/10 years/whatever. What the hell? American prisons have the ability to speed up time now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
So you believe that the justice system is fair and objective...LOL...wrong. The appeals protect the innocent that are wrongly accused and convicted. Better for 1000 guilty men to go free then 1 innocent person go to prison (especially if that innocent person is you)!

---

No, I don't believe that the justice system is fair and objective. The appeals do not protect the innocent that are wrongly accused and convicted, they protect the criminals who have been convicted and don't want to be punished for their actions. Better for 1000 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent person to go to prison? Are you kidding me? I think the number is a little higher than 1,000, buddy. How often do you see an innocent man go to prison? This is real life, not the movies. I bet you watched Con-Air and thought: "Poor Nicholas Cage... he was only defending himself and he went to jail for a ton of years." That only happens in the movies. In reality, a truly innocent man with a lawyer worth his weight in shit could prevent such a thing from occuring.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
Once again, it is better to make 100% sure that this person is guilty. You cannot reverse an execution.

---

Hmmm... where's my Rolodex. Let's see... G... Garfield... Gary... Gertrude... ah, here we are... God... Let's ask Him if the person is guilty! Only two people know for a fact if the man is guilty: 1) The man, 2) His dead victim. Neither are talking. You speak as though innocent men are sent to death row every day. Do you think that you are just walking around in a parking lot and the cops pick you up and bring you in for homocide?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
You would have loved to live in the days of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Your ideal system was in place there and then.

---

You cannot compare Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to the United States of America.

-Warik

------------------

Rape, Murder, and aggrivated assault make up only 2.2% of all crimes committed.

That voids your argument about parole being a plauge on society.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warik:
I think the number is a little higher than 1,000, buddy. How often do you see an innocent man go to prison? This is real life, not the movies. I bet you watchedThat only happens in the movies. In reality, a truly innocent man with a lawyer worth his weight in shit could prevent such a thing from occuring.
-Warik

---

The reason you never see innocent people go free because it is not shown in the news often or never realized.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
Warik,

Rape, Murder, and aggrivated assault make up only 2.2% of all crimes committed.

That voids your argument about parole being a plauge on society.

---

1) From where did you get this statistic?

2) Are you then attempting to say that criminals being paroled for violent crimes are not a problem in society unless those violent crimes make up 2.20001% or more of all crimes committed?

Listen to yourself. When does my argument become valid? At 3%? 4%? 10%? 15%? I think my argument becomes invalid only at 0% - what about you?

-Warik

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
Also, 90% of the poor people in prison (mostly minorities) had useless rat lawyers.
They at least deserve an appeal.

---

An appeal - but not as many of them as they need until the courts become bored and set them free.

Are you saying that 90% of the poor people in jail would not be in jail if they could afford a good lawyer? Are you then stating that 90% of the poor people in prison are actually not guilty and shouldn't be there? Weren't you (or was it someone else?) the person who stated that tendency to commit crime was based on socioeconomic status? Do I smell a contradiction here?

"Poor people are more likely to commit crimes, but those poor people who are in jail are actually not criminals." I don't understand.

-Warik

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warik:
1) From where did you get this statistic?

2) Are you then attempting to say that criminals being paroled for violent crimes are not a problem in society unless those violent crimes make up 2.20001% or more of all crimes committed?

Listen to yourself. When does my argument become valid? At 3%? 4%? 10%? 15%? I think my argument becomes invalid only at 0% - what about you?

-Warik

---

Check out the government stats. http://www.bop.gov/fact0598.html#Race

There are 125,000 federal prisoners. So, 2.2% you are trying to base your negative opinion of the parole system on 2800 people in the whole population of 125,000 inmates? That seems a bit extreme and dramatic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warik:
[b]An appeal - but not as many of them as they need until the courts become bored and set them free.

Are you saying that 90% of the poor people in jail would not be in jail if they could afford a good lawyer? Are you then stating that 90% of the poor people in prison are actually not guilty and shouldn't be there? Weren't you (or was it someone else?) the person who stated that tendency to commit crime was based on socioeconomic status? Do I smell a contradiction here?

"Poor people are more likely to commit crimes, but those poor people who are in jail are actually not criminals." I don't understand.

-Warik
[/B]

---

I don't think I used those words but I will play along.

There is definitely a link but the difference between a good lawyer and a rat lawyer could be 6 months probation and 6 years in prison, respectively. Some may be guilty but they would not be in prison with a better lawyer.

Poor people are assumed guilty. That is a fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
There are 125,000 federal prisoners. So, 2.2% you are trying to base your negative opinion of the parole system on 2800 people in the whole population of 125,000 inmates? That seems a bit extreme and dramatic.

---

A criminal is a criminal. The fact of the matter is that the parole system allows criminals to go free before serving their full sentence. With such a system in existence, what is the point of sending them to prison in the first place?

-Warik

------------------

125,000 federal prisoners is just a tinylittle piece of those incarcerated.

Most criminals are housed in state facilities....from what I have read there are over 2,000,000 people incarcerated nationwide. (It was big news when we reached 1% of our population).

Regardless. most of our criminals are in state facilities.....so you are both using a sample which is roughly 5% of the total prison population.

Also, the FBI and the DEA, etc, don't go after armed robbers or those who commit homicide, for the most part. City or state police handle most of those crimes, inless it;s someonme like McVeigh or the UnaBomber.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattTheSkywalker:
Just by of info - and I know you both know this:

125,000 federal prisoners is just a tinylittle piece of those incarcerated.

Most criminals are housed in state facilities....from what I have read there are over 2,000,000 people incarcerated nationwide. (It was big news when we reached 1% of our population).

Regardless. most of our criminals are in state facilities.....so you are both using a sample which is roughly 5% of the total prison population.

Also, the FBI and the DEA, etc, don't go after armed robbers or those who commit homicide, for the most part. City or state police handle most of those crimes, inless it;s someonme like McVeigh or the UnaBomber.

I suspect state statistics might paint a different picture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:
I was under the impression that all murderers are in federal prison. Since murder is a federal offence.

---

Not so.

In fact, the overwhelming majority are in state prisons. I can't give you stats right now, but I know this:

Prisoners are executed by the state. Texas is the "leader" along with California and Florida. There hasn't been a federal execution since 1963....when McVeigh is put to death later this year, he will be the first in 38 years.

It isn't just death row....I was citing that as a well known example. Few people on federal prisons are there for murder, or other violent crime. (As you saw on the BOP page)

Most "federal offenses" involve commission of crime across state lines - i.e. the Unabomber. Most of the drug offenders there are likely there for trafficking into teh US or from state to state.

BTW: McVeigh is only in federal prison because he blew up a federal building. it has nothing to do with the 168 counts of murder. The Wendy's murders (well known NY case) killed 5 people and they are in upstate NY.

If you are basing your 2.2% purely on the 125,000 prisoners, then you are way off base.

Parole is such a problem that some states such as Arizona have abolished it. On a state by state issue you have a much higher rate of violent crime committed than you would at first believe.

Think about this. Of all the crimes committed in this country 75% or more are by repeat offenders. Of those repeats somewhere on the order of 50-75% of the violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders Now for argument sake, let's say that the 50-75% of violent crimes by repeat offenders is from only the 2.2% number. That means that that 2.2% should not be released. If we completely abolished parole, the violent crime rate would be cut to almost nothing and we would only be housing 2.2% of prisoners in doing so.

I say put them on the moon and forget about them.

Take a look at this and tell me that the 2.2% murder figure is off....

According to the US Census Statistics. Murder is nationally only ~1.3% of all violent crime. That means that it is even less of the total crime rate since property crime makes up about 80% of all crime.

I'm just pointing out that an argument based on federal statistics alone is incomplete.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattTheSkywalker:

If 80% of crime is property crime, how why are there so many drug offenders in jail?

---

I will use your logic to answer that question. First of all, the 58% stat is from federal departments (i.e. DEA, FBI, ATF, etc).

Secondly, drug related offences are not violent crimes so they fall under the rubric of vice crimes (which most times mistakenly fall under property crime).

So, I find on the whole two very interesting facts, the huge upsurge in agg assaults and the resurgence of robbery's Both of these trends correlate directly with increasing gun control laws. Hmmm, while at the same time the murder rate and rape rate remained relatively constant. Hmmmm, I thought the murder rate was drastically reduced? Hmmm,
If, you were to analyze these on a state by state and county/city by county/city level you would find much more interesting and useable information.

While 20k murders or so for 350 million population does not seem like a lot, look at it locally, where a 1,000 murders a year occur or 5,000 robbery's occur.

That will give you better statistics and what possible problems are.

The Federal statistics are a smearing of the properties to get a homogeneous set of data that can be used for reporting purposes to the media and population as a whole.