10 U.S. States With The Highest Murder Rates

A lot of it is cultural as well. The family structure in Japan is much stronger than in other cultures. I believe that constantly being surrounded by family has a positive impact on an individual that manifests itself in all kinds of ways, including not killing each other.

Might have something to do with guns and swords being mostly forbidden as well: "Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it." - Much harder to kill someone with a knife or with bare hands.

Wiki lists Irvine, CA as having pretty much the lowest rates for all categories, with a violent crime rate less than half of the next lowest city.

The 2010 census shows Asians accounted for around 45% of the city's population then and likely the majority now.

I visited Japan for two weeks less than two months ago, and the efficiency, organization, and common decency among the people is positively mind-blowing. I befriended some people and I was so awestruck by their society that I just outright asked them how they did it, and their answer was just that, more than any other ethic, they are taught from birth to always be polite and to never be the person that disrupts harmony. They don't get all rah-rah about jingoism (I saw one Japanese flag while I was there -- at the Hiroshima memorial). They don't fuss about silly things. They just handle their business. It was positively remarkable.

Having said that, one can't ignore that Japan is ethnically homogenous and geographically isolated. That makes it much easier to run a society. The pressure to be "proper" (in behavior and life) also causes a lot of depression and suicide (as the numbers show). But still, it's my favorite place I've ever been. I can't wait to go back.

Murder rate is something that doesn't necessarily reflect on a society as a whole. Murders are such a rare event even in the areas with the highest murder rates that the cause for each murder has to be something that is one-off, or at least very rare. It is possible that a high murder rate reflects generally low levels of morality in a society, but it is also possible that it reflects a polarised society. Emphasis on the community as a whole and fitting in might reduce or increase polarisation, although if it is relevant here it would seem to reduce it. There could also be other factors at play here.

In the US more immigration correlates to lower crime rates. I'd also argue that it is a cause.

Japan and Korea share many characteristics, and one of them is low crime and murder rates. One reason in Korea is cctv cameras EVERYWHERE. Also constant watching by others in person.

I think also the suppression of losing one's temper is considered admirable (although Koreans are hot-tempered) so blustering in a bar fight and brandishing a weapon would be OTT here, unlike in the US.

The best summary of the Japanese attitude I have heard is "respect for others". In many situations Japanese will go out of their way to show that respect and tolerate something that they may disagree with.

Probably a big factor is that Japan is much older. Younger people are much more likely to murder or be murdered.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Immigrants are often seen as dangerous/dirty/lazy/taking our jobs, which puts them in a worse, and often separate position in society. Even without outright racism and intention, because of language and cultural barriers and lack of connections, they are more likely to end up perspectiveless, and from there crime is a likely next step. However, depending on the kind of society, this trend can be minimized, and because of other positive effects, immigration can still be a net gain for both sides. If we even want to consider gains when it comes to this issue.

I need to clarify that I was not talking about immigrants with my comment re homogeneity making things easier, or trying to draw a direct cause-effect connection re multiculturalism and gun violence. I was speaking first about how Japan's culture is built around harmony and cooperation. I then mused that having a population that is 98% from the same ethnicity likely makes it easier to agree upon what is socially acceptable because those people more likely have the same basic views. To westerners, that sounds like a comment on immigration, but it's not. I just meant that having fewer distinct social groups means fewer opportunities for discord among those groups. I should add both that "easier" does not necessarily mean "better," and reaching consensus more easily is only good if the consensus (and the culture) are built around good ideas. The US had easier consensuses in the 1830's when only one culture, moneyed white men, had a say. But of course those views were not great.

the suicide rate is massive tho

I get what jmellor is saying--it's less a comment on diversity vs. homogeneity and more about cohesion vs. division. Japan can easily avoid ethnic/religious/political/economic polarization because everyone follows the same ideals and the same culture. Polarization isn't the only factor contributing to crime, but when people disagree with each other, it increases the chance of violent conflict and/or radicalizes people until they turn violent.

Of course, you can have a peaceful, non-polarized societies that are culturally diverse too. As wkrpync said above, many of the American cities with the largest immigrant populations (New York, Los Angeles, El Paso) tend to have relatively low murder rates compared to the rest of the population.

Regardless of the possible influence of homogeneity on crime though, the biggest factor behind high crime rates in America are lax gun laws (see my comments below).

I wasn’t entirely surprised to see that so many people jumped on immigration as the most likely cause of the disparity between the USA and Japan. This completely breaks down though as soon as you go deeper than the straight USA vs Japan stats (and it’s not like Quizmaster didn’t provide them). The UK is highly multicultural and has had Commonwealth and EU mass immigration over decades, yet has a lower murder rate than New Hampshire. And I’m fairly certain California has more immigrants than many of the top 10 here, yet doesn’t appear.

The most obvious correlation when looking at this list, plus the extra statistics provided would appear to be poverty. But Mississippi doesn’t appear, which suggests that, as with most things, multiple factors are probably at play and there isn’t a single, simple explanation. But at least we can probably dismiss one simple explanation- can’t blame immigrants for this one.

And also, perhaps the guy who went to Yokohama could maybe think about what he’s saying again? You’ve just called an entire nation 125+ million people xenophobic based on some people saying things which you, by your own admission, couldn’t understand. Now, anyone can do lazy, sweeping generalisations. I won’t, but I know people who would, and I can guess a particular nationality that may come up if I were to ask them “which nationality is xenophobic/racist.”

It's also somewhat misleading to say all Japanese have the same values. I'm not an expert on Japan, but from what I do know I can guarantee there are numerous modern/post-modern subcultures like there are in the United States, and

I would imagine they clash.

Hopefully someone with more knowledge can weigh in on this, but I'm not sure I would jump the gun and call Japan culturally homogenous just because it's ethnically homogenous.

I would have to agree.

There was a gas attack on the subway many years ago that seems to contradict the whole "no one is extremist in Japan" narrative.

I think that Japanese people, in general, are less physically aggressive than are people from other countries.

Coupled with a developed economy and active, funded, law enforcement, and you get one of the lowest recorded murder rates in the world.

Of course, an actual anthropologist would have a much better answer on this.

2.4 last year

The UK still has a considerably lower murder rate than the USA.

If acid, nail bombs, knives, hatchets, etc. are all just as dangerous as guns, then why do people make such a big deal about having guns to protect themselves? Why not just have a knife, if it's equally as dangerous as a gun?

The trouble with your comment 'TinklePork' is that the USA also has Nail Bombs, van rammings, beheading, knife attacks, machete attacks etc. etc. plus a terrible murder rate.

You're right to a large extent, Bernard, but recent evidence is showing stricter gun laws do lead to a slightly lower murder rate. That runs contrary to the pro-gun lobby's claims - but its always convoluted as cities with stronger laws are often surrounded by areas with extremely weak laws (ie, Chicago, surrounded by Indiana and Wisconsin's weak laws).

What actually does show more of an impact than anything else is reduced lead exposure - this exposure is known to not only harm intellectual development, but result in more violent tendencies. As we've eliminated leaded gas and leaded paint, lead exposure levels have plummeted, followed by perfectly correlated declines in violent crime rates, delayed by 15-20 years (ie, the time it takes for kids to grow up).

Unfortunately, many poverty-stricken areas never have had good lead paint removal programs. We'd rather spend a fortune to incarcerate them than to fix the problem on the cheap.

I've lived in the UK on and off for nearly half a century, and I've only been beheaded a few times. Funny thing - it grows back slightly different each time

This is a simplistic approach though. Gun possession being *a* cause of violence does not mean gun possession is *the* cause of violence. There are other variables at work, so you can't just draw to a direct causation between guns and violence or the lack of violence. If I start eating ice cream everyday, but also start running ten miles daily and cut all soda and white starch out of my diet, I'll probably lose weight. But that doesn't change the fact that ice cream is fatty and makes people gain weight. It's just that there are other variable offsetting its effects. I think this is true of the entire conversation around guns. Both sides fixate on whichever factor is most beneficial to their cause (gun possession or "mental health"), and ignore all the other factors like access to education, community activism, interactions with police, poverty, drug epidemics, etc.

Building off of that... Australia, after a devastating mass shooting in 1996, introduced very serious and restrictive gun laws, such as bans on semi-automatic rifles, strict background checks, and a government buyback program. Their suicide rate has plummeted and there have been way fewer mass shootings than before the law was passed. If America was even half as strict as Australia, I have a feeling we'd see similar results here.

Yeah, I live in Illinois and put it in as a joke, but then it accepted the answer. Then I remembered that Chicago exists.

Maryland is on here because of Baltimore - which represents a bit over 10% of Maryland's total pop. Michigan's problematic areas, primarily Detroit, Flint, and Benton Harbor, represent under 8% of Michigan's total pop, and all. So Baltimore, with it murder rate higher than Detroit or Flint or Benton Harbor, has an outsized impact.

Often people hear the news headlines and miss the underlying facts. For example, the city of Detroit is only roughly 1/6th of the total population of Metro Detroit. So they hear about high murder rates in Detroit and conflate that with high murder rates around the entire metro region, when most of it is in fact very safe.

Or they hear about high numbers of murders in Chicago and assume its a complete war zone, when in fact many cities in the US have equally high or higher murder rates (St. Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc)...

Illinois is also certainly affected by East St. Louis.

Nevada is not considered part of what the U.S. calls the South with a capital S, i.e., the southeast, the old southern part of the country before westward expansion. Hawaii, the most southern state by latitude is not the Deep South.

Nevada is not remotely part of the South. And most of the murders occur in Las Vegas, which is hardly a "red" city. Most of the murders there are either gang related or a result of their wonderful neighbor state releasing dozens upon dozens of felons who then go next door and commit violent crimes.

Yeah... being red states isn't the common denominator.

I found the 2018 FBI crime report for Missouri and it seems we're both wrong. It includes all violent crimes, but I didn't see anything from the KC area. However, St Louis and its suburbs totaled only four, with one, Poplar Bluff, in the Bootheel area. (I know heroin is a problem there.) The remaining ones were in the southwest part of the state - Springfield, Branson, Joplin, Bolivar, and Nevada. As you said, maybe it's the "Winter's Bone" issue of drugs. We own a few acres in the Ozarks and meth is still a real problem over there. I've lived in the Bootheel region all my life except for college years, but I never thought of us as "sleepy". We are rural, but I'd describe us as rowdy rather than sleepy. Boys driving the backroads in their duallys on weekends, drinking, or taking opioids to have a good time, and some dying in the process. The three young men I knew who died of drug overdoses were educated and came from families who were in business or law. Poverty wasn't the reason.