Slashdot Mirror


UN Report Reveals Odds of Being Murdered Country By Country

ananyo (2519492) writes "A new UN report (link to data) details comprehensive country-by-country murder rates. Safest is Singapore, with just one killing per 480,000 people in 2012. In the world's most violent country, Honduras, a man has a 1 in 9 chance of being murdered during his lifetime. The Economist includes an intriguing 'print only interactive' (see the PDF) and has some tongue-in-cheek tips on how to avoid being slain: 'First, don't live in the Americas or Africa, where murder rates (one in 6,100 and one in 8,000 respectively) are more than four times as high as the rest of the world. Next, be a woman. Your chance of being murdered will be barely a quarter what it would be were you a man. In fact, steer clear of men altogether: nearly half of all female murder-victims are killed by their partner or another (usually male) family member. But note that the gender imbalance is less pronounced in the rich world, probably because there is less banditry, a mainly male pursuit. In Japan and South Korea slightly over half of all murder victims are female. Then, sit back and grow older. From the age of 30 onwards, murder rates fall steadily in most places.'"

33 of 386 comments (clear)

  1. I've made a decision by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 5, Funny

    In order to live as long as possible, I have decided to have gender reassignment surgery to become a woman, and I will move to Antarctica and start a utopian lesbian society, since there are no murders there. I haven't worked out the details yet, but it seems like a no-brainer.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    1. Re:I've made a decision by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh you and your facts.

    2. Re:I've made a decision by mjwx · · Score: 4, Funny

      man on LGBT violence appears more prevalent because it always makes the evening news...because the victim always looks Faaaabulous

      Erm.. fixed that for you.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:I've made a decision by znrt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most men are killed because of who they are - gay men and transgendered people are frequently killed for how they were born. If you can't distinguish the two, and why one is heinously more severe than the other, you fail as a human being.

      you take this way too seriously. for example, the un report doesn't count murders perpetrated in the name of "war on terror" (never actually reconned as a war, so those are plain criminal killings wether prosecuted or not) and this omission alone renders the figures meaningless anyway. just an example of many other ways people get killed without making it to the headlines or fancy un statistics. it's just gossip for gutmenschen (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutmensch).

      that said, how considering killing "because of how" fundamentally more heinous and severe than "because of who" is supposed to make a "better" human out of someone is beyond me.

    4. Re:I've made a decision by N0Man74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know you're joking, but that is exactly how twisted left wing ideology gets when it has festered too long.

      I want you to take a moment and honestly consider the following question.

      Which of these two do you think is more likely:

      1) The left wants to turn everyone into black transgender lesbian atheistic Muslims on welfare having abortions, and the right wing is absolutely right about the liberal agenda...
      2) The left believes in respecting the humanity, identity, and choices of people, and the right wing tries to demonize liberal ideology in order to make foolish people (like yourself) believe that protecting a choice or identity is the same as forcing it on people.

  2. Singapore by Camembert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have lived 2 years in Singapore, and indeed it is a tremendously safe place. Nobody worries about taking a shortcut through an alley, something not done in most western cities. It does mean that my local friends were often uncomfortable when traveling abroad, all countries seem dangerous after you've experienced Singapore.

    It may not be a democracy, but we have to admit, they do a lot of things RIGHT. It is a pleasure to live there, as long as you have no political ambitions.

    1. Re:Singapore by clarkkent09 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Draconian punishments for even minor offenses will make a place safe, doesn't mean that they are doing it right.

        If we were doing a 10th of what they do (mandatory capital punishment for possession of 15g of heroin, heavy whipping for graffiti, 3 months in prison plus whipping as a mandatory minimum sentence for foreigners overstaying their visa etc) the same people who admire their low crime rate would be calling it fascism.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:Singapore by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it's a city state

      the policies that work for one small rich densely populated tightly controlled area does not apply to large areas of rural and urban, rich and poor

      singapore offers no lessons about how to run real countries

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:Singapore by Camembert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Look, I am a normal dude who doesn't involve in criminal activities. Life is good then in Singapore.
      If you think you can have a career in drug dealing, then you would indeed be very, very dumb to try that in Singapore. The result is that the city state is visibly suffering far less from drug abuse issues than nearly any other city.
      And indeed, neither the government, NOR THE LOCALS, are fond of graffiti. If you want to be an asshole and try it anyway, well you know the risk associated.
      And yes, even the locals call it a "fine" city as their are fines for a lot of misdemeanors, yet the fine system did change behaviour. As an amusing example, if I am remembering well, you can have a fine for not flushing in a public toilet. This had an effect, you have to keep in mind the poor uncultivated beginnings of Singapore.
      Currently the behaviour of most everyone is changed, nobody even wonders if they should apply basic hygienic procedures.
      I agree that whipping is draconian and overkill towards foreigners overstaying their work visum. It is luckily enough of a deterrent to strongly discourage the practice.

      In general however it is not at all a fascist police state. I have lived there, I experienced it. I would call the non-democratic government rather a kind of "enlightened despotism", and I (and my fellow expats back then) had to admit that they did a lot of things very, very well indeed.

      Interestingly, Singapore in the 1980s was the model for Deng Xiaoping who during a visit noticed how you can have good prosperity and strong government influence together. This is how he started the reforms that made China into the economic powerhouse that it is now.

    4. Re:Singapore by jma05 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > Draconian punishments for even minor offenses will make a place safe, doesn't mean that they are doing it right.

      Incarceration rates per 100K
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Singapore: 230
      US: 716

      Capital punishment:
      It was true that a couple of decades ago, they did this a lot (ranked 2nd then). Now they seem to be doing it 5 - 10 times less.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      4 were executed in 2011. None in 2010.

  3. Re:shenanigans by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, because the U.N. is known for shoddy science.

    The data files include the source of the figures, generally reported by the WHO instead of the national police in those countries where the official figures may be suspect. If there are official complaints about the figures, they'll likely come from the ambassador of Bananazuela who will claim that the figures for his tourist-friendly country are too high.

    --
    John
  4. Next, be a woman by rossdee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A women may be less likely to be murdered but more likely to be raped.

    1. Re:Next, be a woman by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Rape is a horrible, horrible crime. But for all of that, the victim, can live a full and normal life after the fact."

      No, no they can't. Some women recover okay, but others find themselves with a lifelong trauma that leaves them unable to form healthy relationships, leaves them scared to leave their homes, and then others just outright commit suicide. Pretending it's something that just happens and then that's it, it's over and you carry on as normal is probably one of the most stupid things I've ever seen modded up on Slashdot. I'm not sure if you just have no understanding of rape whatsoever and are completely out of depth on this topic, or if you just phrased your post incredibly poorly and unintentionally trivialised it as a result, but either way you really couldn't be more wrong in the way it's written. The very fact a non-negligible number of victims commit suicide implies that for some of them they'd actually rather be dead than have to deal with the aftermath of being raped.

      I understand that by definition murder means no ifs, no buts, there's no life afterwards, but for some victims the experience and aftermath of being raped was literally worse than death for them so you cannot just simplistically say that it's not worse than murder. That depends entirely on the victim, and what happened to them - it's so dependent on the case in question. For example, I'd have a hard time buying the idea that the murder of a 70 year old man who lived a full life and who had terminal cancer and only 6 months to live is somehow worse for the victim than a woman that's had to live her life with non-stop memories, clinical depression, and constant reminders of being repeatedly raped by a family member when she was a kid. I know without a doubt which victim I'd rather be.

      In contrast, a girl who slept with a guy and then changed her mind afterwards and then decided to cry rape, and lived in a country where that is legally acceptable to do so (Hi Sweden), probably wont have the slightest bit of trauma to suffer at all other than maybe a bit of regret about sleeping with "that guy". But these sorts of nuances just aren't born out in the statistics, so you just cannot simply say "Well, rape is not as bad as murder because you can just live a normal life afterwards" - no, just no. Stamp that idea out right the fuck now, it's so utterly wrong.

    2. Re:Next, be a woman by anss123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, no they can't..

      "Can" in this context does not mean "will". Yes, there are rape victims that kill themselves, but he's not saying anything against that.

      I'd have a hard time buying the idea that the murder of a 70 year old man who lived a full life and who had terminal cancer and only 6 months to live is somehow worse for the victim than a woman that's had to live her life with non-stop memories

      A rather contrived scenario. I too know without a doubt which victim I'd rather be. And that's alive, thank you very much, don't pick for me.

      In contrast, a girl who slept with a guy and then changed her mind afterwards and then decided to cry rape, and lived in a country where that is legally acceptable to do so (Hi Sweden), probably wont have the slightest bit of trauma to suffer at all other than maybe a bit of regret about sleeping with "that guy"

      Research have shown that people can suffer trauma from make-belief fantasies. Conversely people can be brutally abused and not suffer any trauma at all. People are complex, yes.

      "Well, rape is not as bad as murder because you can just live a normal life afterwards" - no, just no. Stamp that idea out right the fuck now, it's so utterly wrong.

      No it's utterly right. In fact, attitudes like these causes trauma in rape victims. Believing themselves to be damaged goods and worthless.

  5. Re:shenanigans by green1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most of the places where this is a problem are the less developed countries, ones where the data is already suspect for different reasons anyway, and where the numbers are often already high. The really enlightening bits are comparing the first world countries, all of whom have a very similar definition of murder (this is actually much better than generic"violent crime" stats where definitions do vary largely)
    What really stands out is that most of the first world countries fall in a range of 1-2 murders per 100000 people per year, except the USA which is more than double that. Always amazing to see how different the USA is than other countries that should be so similar (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, even England) and how the public opinion in the USA is so against any efforts at improving the situation (better education. Health care for all, less inequality, gun control, all the things that have proven to work in the rest of the western world)

  6. a fact not mentioned: women kill more men, too by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At least in the US, women kill more men than women.

    Also, while gender issues folks are more than happy to do all sorts of mental gymnastics for other things: nobody is willing to touch "why do men commit robbery more?" with a ten foot pole because then they'd have to admit that traditional gender roles for men are still very much in place, men are judged heavily by their economic status, and men are committing crime by and large to house, feed, and clothe their families.

    Lots of assistance for single mothers out there, like WIC. Single dads? Shit outta luck.

    Guess what percentage of the US homeless population is male? Depending on the area, anywhere from 67% to 80% (NYC, for example, is 82%.) Oh, and the percentage of women in homeless shelters is higher than the percentage of homeless women total, showing women are better served.

    Male privilege, my ass.

  7. Fixed, with better layout by arielCo · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  8. Re:shenanigans by green1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US murder rate is more than double that of the rest of the western world. Despite the four points I listed being the biggest differences between your country and the other Western democracies. Your personal refusal to even consider any possible improvement in that situation is endemic of the problem that causes your chance of being murdered to be more than double that of any other western citizen.

    I'm glad you're OK with your odds, after all, you choose them.

  9. rape is *the* lowest category of violent crime by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A women may be less likely to be murdered but more likely to be raped.

    That's mostly because the FBI doesn't consider prison rape to be a crime; I think the estimates I hear are typically around 200,000-300,000 male prison rape victims a year, which comes close to making the rape stats 50/50. There's also very little interest in figuring out the underreporting rate for male rape victims in open society; hell, in many places it isn't even a crime for a woman to rape a man because of the way rape was defined.

    But even if you ignore all that: I'll take those odds. Rape has the lowest occurrence rate in the US of any violent crime, and not only that, it's declined the most over the last decade or two as well. Men are several times more likely to be KILLED. Last time I checked, that was worse.

    By the way: case clearance rates for female homicide victims are higher than for male homicide victims.

    You can either listen to the gender issues folks, who make it sound like violence against women is a HUGE CRISIS, or you can read the BJS statistics. Women have been, and continue to be, a protected class in the US.

    1. Re:rape is *the* lowest category of violent crime by jma05 · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I was in US, I was very puzzled at the lack of empathy in public discourse towards prison rape. This was especially surprising since US leads the world in incarceration rate (3.5 times the supposedly âoeevery thing is a crimeâ Singapore) - so it is not even as if prison is reserved for the worst of the worst, with non-violent offenders frequently jailed, let alone the argument of punishing as sentenced and nothing more.

      However, I don't understand your chain of reasoning. You argued that there is significant amount of rape when prisons are taken in account and then go on to say...

      > Rape has the lowest occurrence rate in the US of any violent crimeâ.
      > Men are several times more likely to be KILLED.

      Clearly not, even with just using numbers you list.

      According to Human Rights Watch though
      http://www.hrw.org/en/news/200...

      âoe4.5 percent of the state and federal prisoners surveyed reported sexual victimization in the past 12 months. Given a national prison population of 1,570,861, the BJS findings suggest that in one year alone more than 70,000 prisoners were sexually abused.â

      According to this somewhat dated stats...
      http://www.oneinfourusa.org/st...

      Rape is far, far more common compared to homicide, anywhere in the world.

      > You can either listen to the gender issues folks, who make it sound like violence against women is a HUGE CRISIS, or you can read the BJS statistics. Women have been, and continue to be, a protected class in the US.

      Yes, it has declined according to BJS. But the starting numbers are so high, that it is still considered a large problem.

    2. Re:rape is *the* lowest category of violent crime by guises · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When I was in US, I was very puzzled at the lack of empathy in public discourse towards prison rape. This was especially surprising since US leads the world in incarceration rate

      These are related statistics. They both stem from the idea that criminals, all criminals regardless of crime, are somehow different from regular folks and not deserving of compassion. It's not something that you'll ever hear explicitly stated, but implicitly when people talk about the need to be "tough on crime" and the unshakable faith that ever harsher sentences are the right approach to addressing the problem.

  10. what that leaves out by stenvar · · Score: 4, Informative

    What the UN report leaves out is one important factor in the US: about half of the perpetrators and victims of homicide are young African American males, completely out of proportion to their prevalence population; that's what accounts for most of the difference between US and other Western murder rates.

    Gun control isn't going to help reduce those murder rates. Nor can those murder rates be explained through racism or bias in the justice system. Until politicians get serious and address this issue, African Americans are going to continue to get killed and locked up at a frightening rate. Unfortunately, our current president has been totally ineffective in doing anything about it.

  11. Re:shenanigans by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have more of a problem with you cherry picking Canada, Australia, NZ, and England, despite those countries having very little in common with the U.S. and causes for violent crime.

    The U.S. falls into the category of large, moderately urbanized countries with large open borders to less industrialized countries, high wealth and wealth disparity, and ethnically diverse populations. Most of the western world is not that way at all, and those properties breed the root cause of the majority of violent crime in those countries, which is the illegal drug trade.

    Countries that share those features include Russia, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, and China. Surprise, surprise, those other countries are all at least or much worse off then the U.S. is, despite some having the strictest gun ownership laws in the world (Russia), all having socialized healthcare, and the US. Actually having a pretty good education system for most of the country (not underserved inner-city areas) when reported the same way other countries are.

    China is the outlier, in that it does not have either high violent crime rates or a violent drug trade, but my theory is that this is because the vast majority of the country lives in squalor and acts as a buffer to help shield the cities, and those cities have their crime rates dilutes by the shield.

    Simple facts are that gun control reduces gun crime but increase violent crime. Education and healthcare raise the standard of living, but don't provide disincentive for crime in the drug trade. You are right about inequality as a facet of this.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  12. Re:shenanigans by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Funny

    Guns don't kill people. Gun-obsessed people kill people.

    (I suspect the high velocity lumps of lead may play a part too.)

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  13. Re:shenanigans by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly, which is why you always see mass shootings at gun shows, gun stores, and gun ranges where there's lot of guns, lots of ammunition, and lots of gun-obsessed people.

    Thankfully, there are some places where that sort of thing isn't tolerated, like schools, malls, and US Postal offices. Ahh yes, gun-free zones, where violence is a thing of the past.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  14. Re:shenanigans by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait a moment, are you saying that there are people who might ignore the gun-free zone signs and carry a gun anyway? What kind of person would even think of doing such a thing?

    But your point is well taken. I think the best way to go is to stop everyone but the police and the military from carrying guns, just like they do in Mexico. Then we could enjoy Mexico's legendarily low violent crime rate right here in the United States.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  15. Re:shenanigans by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have no evidence for that - it's just a nice excuse to make you think that the US isn't as messed up as it is. You also seem to be woefully ill-informed of the diversity in many places in Europe which rivals (or beats) the diversity in many violence-soaked places in the US. So to recap: you are making excuses for your country based on nonsense, in some childish attempt to not have to think about the intrinsic issues in the US which makes it one of the most dangerous countries in the developed world. You do realise you, and those who think like you, are causing harm to the US, right? As you gladly dismiss any criticism as being European propaganda, ensuring the harm continues unabated, just so you can feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside. You're clearly an intelligent person, so I have no idea what happened to you to skew your brain this way.

  16. Re:shenanigans by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You'll never get americans to give up their guns: they're all too afraid. What are they so scared of? Yup, all the (other) people with guns. The comments about gun shops and firing ranges being the "safest" places demonstrates this very well. The gun-owners feel safest when surrounded by guns. However when they are out in the big, nasty, world they feel insecure that other people might have weapons they can't see, so the urge to protect themselves becomes very strong.

    Obviously, if nobody in the USA had a gun, this level of fear should be reduced, but it's irrational and doesn't work like that. Hence they all keep their guns and that induces more fear - so they feel the need for more and bigger guns, just as a sort of "safety blanket" (as almost none of them are ever fired in the real world) - which, of course, escalates the problem.

    It's all because they're all so scared of each other.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  17. Re:Liechtenstein by shrewdsheep · · Score: 3, Funny

    Carefully read the statitics: banker killings are counted negative, so that in Lichtenstein every non-banker murder is offset by a banker-killing. Research shows that indeed the net-effect is zero.

  18. Re:I hate these numbers by qbast · · Score: 4, Funny

    Damn, your parents really hated you to give you name like 'holophrastic'.

  19. Drilling down deeper by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would also point out that the "US" - commonly condemned in such statistics - is probably the least homogenous country in the world. As such, it's probably useful to look at the state by state rankings, both positively and negatively:
    (ranked by deaths per 100k)
    1. District of Columbia 30.8 http://www.city-data.com/forum...

    --
    -Styopa
  20. Yay Canada! by guytoronto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Canada = 1.4-1.8/100k

    U.S. = 4.7-6.6/100k

    It's amazing how some people will defend the American way of life while being completely blind to the American way of death.

  21. Re:shenanigans by Entropius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The difference is that the ethnic diversity in Europe looks different than it does in the US: in Europe, it's because of immigration. Folks generally don't cross an ocean to then shit on the society they've come to join. Sure enough there's really not that much violence in most immigrant communities in the US. I used to live in the slums of Baltimore, and finally moved to a new apartment in DC. I got to the laundry room and saw a lady in there speaking Spanish to her daughter, and thought "Alrighty, if the immigrants have come here, this is a decent place." I was right.

    But the highest crime rate in the US is in the black enclaves in the inner cities. That population was never an immigrant community; it's the descendants of former slaves. We (the American whites) did horrible things to them, and then after emancipation continued to do horrible things to them in part of the country while not really doing enough to facilitate the integration of the liberated slaves and their descendants into society. By the time we passed the Civil Rights Act there were endemic social problems in the US black community, to the point that there's a long and very respectful Department of Labor study into them (the Moynihan Report).

    So now in the US those black enclaves have a sky-high murder rate, and the rest of the country has a pretty low one (broadly similar to Europe's). Why? A whole constellation of historical and cultural reasons, many of them traceable back to horrid racism years ago. Should we still blame whitey for the problems? Is it slavery's fault that kids in the ghetto kill each other for silly reasons and don't want to learn to read and write? I dunno.

    But saying simply "Europe has diversity too" misses the point: the non-white folks in Europe are there because they came there and wanted to be European, for the most part. (This is pretty similar to Asian-Americans, a group with a low crime rate.) That has vastly different cultural effects than hauling people's ancestors over in chains and wrecking their society.