|
The 2007 Most Dangerous States
"1" is Most Dangerous, "50" is Safest
ALPHA ORDER
RANK ORDER
2007
STATE
SUM
2006
Change
2007
STATE
SUM
2006
Change
|
17 |
Alabama |
6.78 |
18 |
-1 |
|
1 |
Nevada |
58.11 |
1 |
0 |
|
7 |
Alaska |
23.05 |
9 |
-2 |
|
2 |
New Mexico |
34.85 |
3 |
-1 |
|
3 |
Arizona |
34.66 |
4 |
-1 |
|
3 |
Arizona |
34.66 |
4 |
-1 |
|
13 |
Arkansas |
10.79 |
15 |
-2 |
|
4 |
Maryland |
34.50 |
5 |
-1 |
|
9 |
California |
17.63 |
10 |
-1 |
|
5 |
Tennessee |
31.79 |
8 |
-3 |
|
22 |
Colorado |
(1.53) |
22 |
0 |
|
6 |
South Carolina |
31.50 |
6 |
0 |
|
40 |
Connecticut |
(37.64) |
39 |
1 |
|
7 |
Alaska |
23.05 |
9 |
-2 |
|
18 |
Delaware |
6.38 |
24 |
-6 |
|
8 |
Florida |
21.06 |
7 |
1 |
|
8 |
Florida |
21.06 |
7 |
1 |
|
9 |
California |
17.63 |
10 |
-1 |
|
20 |
Georgia |
5.30 |
13 |
7 |
|
10 |
Louisiana |
17.55 |
2 |
8 |
|
28 |
Hawaii |
(16.17) |
26 |
2 |
|
11 |
Michigan |
16.55 |
12 |
-1 |
|
39 |
Idaho |
(37.21) |
40 |
-1 |
|
12 |
Texas |
13.85 |
11 |
1 |
|
21 |
Illinois |
2.27 |
19 |
2 |
|
13 |
Arkansas |
10.79 |
15 |
-2 |
|
25 |
Indiana |
(14.44) |
28 |
-3 |
|
14 |
Washington |
9.37 |
16 |
-2 |
|
43 |
Iowa |
(42.78) |
43 |
0 |
|
15 |
Oklahoma |
8.44 |
14 |
1 |
|
27 |
Kansas |
(15.64) |
25 |
2 |
|
16 |
North Carolina |
8.33 |
17 |
-1 |
|
34 |
Kentucky |
(27.00) |
33 |
1 |
|
17 |
Alabama |
6.78 |
18 |
-1 |
|
10 |
Louisiana |
17.55 |
2 |
8 |
|
18 |
Delaware |
6.38 |
24 |
-6 |
|
48 |
Maine |
(61.37) |
49 |
-1 |
|
19 |
Missouri |
5.59 |
20 |
-1 |
|
4 |
Maryland |
34.50 |
5 |
-1 |
|
20 |
Georgia |
5.30 |
13 |
7 |
|
30 |
Massachusetts |
(21.77) |
30 |
0 |
|
21 |
Illinois |
2.27 |
19 |
2 |
|
11 |
Michigan |
16.55 |
12 |
-1 |
|
22 |
Colorado |
(1.53) |
22 |
0 |
|
32 |
Minnesota |
(25.93) |
35 |
-3 |
|
23 |
Ohio |
(1.92) |
23 |
0 |
|
24 |
Mississippi |
(7.95) |
21 |
3 |
|
24 |
Mississippi |
(7.95) |
21 |
3 |
|
19 |
Missouri |
5.59 |
20 |
-1 |
|
25 |
Indiana |
(14.44) |
28 |
-3 |
|
44 |
Montana |
(44.74) |
42 |
2 |
|
26 |
Pennsylvania |
(15.06) |
29 |
-3 |
|
37 |
Nebraska |
(32.39) |
34 |
3 |
|
27 |
Kansas |
(15.64) |
25 |
2 |
|
1 |
Nevada |
58.11 |
1 |
0 |
|
28 |
Hawaii |
(16.17) |
26 |
2 |
|
47 |
New Hampshire |
(60.85) |
47 |
0 |
|
29 |
Oregon |
(18.13) |
27 |
2 |
|
33 |
New Jersey |
(26.94) |
32 |
1 |
|
30 |
Massachusetts |
(21.77) |
30 |
0 |
|
2 |
New Mexico |
34.85 |
3 |
-1 |
|
31 |
New York |
(25.76) |
31 |
0 |
|
31 |
New York |
(25.76) |
31 |
0 |
|
32 |
Minnesota |
(25.93) |
35 |
-3 |
|
16 |
North Carolina |
8.33 |
17 |
-1 |
|
33 |
New Jersey |
(26.94) |
32 |
1 |
|
50 |
North Dakota |
(65.58) |
50 |
0 |
|
34 |
Kentucky |
(27.00) |
33 |
1 |
|
23 |
Ohio |
(1.92) |
23 |
0 |
|
35 |
Rhode Island |
(30.22) |
38 |
-3 |
|
15 |
Oklahoma |
8.44 |
14 |
1 |
|
36 |
Virginia |
(31.85) |
37 |
-1 |
|
29 |
Oregon |
(18.13) |
27 |
2 |
|
37 |
Nebraska |
(32.39) |
34 |
3 |
|
26 |
Pennsylvania |
(15.06) |
29 |
-3 |
|
38 |
Utah |
(32.43) |
36 |
2 |
|
35 |
Rhode Island |
(30.22) |
38 |
-3 |
|
39 |
Idaho |
(37.21) |
40 |
-1 |
|
6 |
South Carolina |
31.50 |
6 |
0 |
|
40 |
Connecticut |
(37.64) |
39 |
1 |
|
45 |
South Dakota |
(48.43) |
45 |
0 |
|
41 |
West Virginia |
(37.87) |
41 |
0 |
|
5 |
Tennessee |
31.79 |
8 |
-3 |
|
42 |
Wisconsin |
(42.11) |
44 |
-2 |
|
12 |
Texas |
13.85 |
11 |
1 |
|
43 |
Iowa |
(42.78) |
43 |
0 |
|
38 |
Utah |
(32.43) |
36 |
2 |
|
44 |
Montana |
(44.74) |
42 |
2 |
|
49 |
Vermont |
(62.33) |
48 |
1 |
|
45 |
South Dakota |
(48.43) |
45 |
0 |
|
36 |
Virginia |
(31.85) |
37 |
-1 |
|
46 |
Wyoming |
(50.03) |
46 |
0 |
|
14 |
Washington |
9.37 |
16 |
-2 |
|
47 |
New Hampshire |
(60.85) |
47 |
0 |
|
41 |
West Virginia |
(37.87) |
41 |
0 |
|
48 |
Maine |
(61.37) |
49 |
-1 |
|
42 |
Wisconsin |
(42.11) |
44 |
-2 |
|
49 |
Vermont |
(62.33) |
48 |
1 |
|
46 |
Wyoming |
(50.03) |
46 |
0 |
|
50 |
North Dakota |
(65.58) |
50 |
0 |
METHODOLOGY: The Most
Dangerous State 2007 rankings are determined by a four step process.
First, rates for six crime categories — murder, rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft — are plugged into
a formula that measures how a state compares to the national average for
a given crime category.
Second, the outcome of this equation is then
multiplied by a weight assigned to each crime category. For this year’s
award, we again gave each crime category equal weight. Thus state
comparisons are based purely on crime rates and how these rates stack up
to the national average for a given crime category.
Third, the weighted numbers are added together to
achieve state’s score ("SUM.") In the fourth and final step, these
composite scores are ranked from highest to lowest to determine which
states are the most dangerous and safest. Thus the farther below the
national average a state’s crime rate is, the lower (and safer) it
ranks. The farther above the national average, the higher (and more
dangerous) a state ranks in the final list.
A Word About Crime
Rankings
Morgan Quitno’s
Press* annual rankings of crime in states, metro areas and cities are
considered by some in the law enforcement community as controversial.
The FBI and many criminologists caution against rankings according to
crime rates. They correctly point out that crime levels are affected by
many different factors, such as population density, composition of the
population (particularly the concentration of youth), climate, economic
conditions, strength of local law enforcement agencies, citizen’s
attitudes toward crime, cultural factors, education levels, crime
reporting practices of citizens and family cohesiveness. Accordingly,
crime rankings often are deemed “simplistic” or “incomplete.”
However, this criticism is largely based on the fact that there are
reasons for the differences in crime rates, not that the rates are
incompatible. This would be somewhat akin to deciding not to compare
athletes on their speed in the 100-yard dash because of physical or
training differences. Such differences help explain the different speeds
but do not invalidate the comparisons.
To be sure, crime-ranking information must be considered carefully.
However the rankings tell not only an interesting, but also very
important story regarding the incidence of crime in the United States.
Furthermore, annual rankings not only allow for comparisons among
different states and cities, but also enable leaders to track their
communities’ crime trends from one year to the next.
We certainly do not want to be irresponsible in our presentation of
state and city crime data. Our publications help concerned Americans
learn how their communities fare in the fight against crime. The first
step in making our cities and states safer is to understand the true
magnitude of their crime problems. This will only be achieved through
straightforward data that all of us can use and understand.
* Morgan Quitno Press, a Kansas-based publishing
and research company.
|
