Crime In Houston

[sevfiv]

I haven't personally noticed more than normal, but I do notice trends on the news (or news feeds, in my case). Not sure if that is just reporters picking and choosing/sensationalizing, or if they are real trends in crime.

I guess taking a look at the HPD statistics in a few months would show something more definitive.

[memebag]

There seems to have been an surge in crime lately in the Houston area.

Based on what?

[Fringe]

Based on what?

Based on the media but I think they are just bored since the election is over and they are tired of reporting about the economy, which for the most part is a non-factor in Houston.

[memebag]

Don't try to predict crime statistics from the local news. The more scared you are, the more money they make.

[dakotafleming]

There seems to have been an surge in crime lately in the Houston area. Theif, kidnapping, violent crime and murder seem to me to be in the news lately. What do yall think has be going in and how can the police, and political leaders combat this problem? Also, the violent crimes and murder are not just taking place in the inner city but more and more out to our suburbs. We know about the economy and that plays a role in it but I think there is more to it than that, what do you think?

Well in my neighborhood (Dairy Ashford at Memorial) we have constables and cops driving around constantly

[ricco67]

Don't try to predict crime statistics from the local news. The more scared you are, the more money they make.

I have to totally agree.

What really irritates me is how they report as a RASH of murders around town.

I just hope that the general public is smart enough to show that a rash of Domestic Violence and Drug related murders does not make for a "increase" in crime.

Quite frankly, I'm all about the dealers and users wiping each other out.

[RedScare]

I have to totally agree.

What really irritates me is how they report as a RASH of murders around town.

I just hope that the general public is smart enough to show that a rash of Domestic Violence and Drug related murders does not make for a "increase" in crime.

Quite frankly, I'm all about the dealers and users wiping each other out.

That is VERY annoying AND misleading. In a given week, Houston will have about 5 murders. If 5 murders occur in one weekend, it is called a rash of murders, even though there may only be 5 murders for the next two weeks. The misuse of statistics by the media is annoying.

[infinite_jim]

Crime is never stop over centuries,as the society is developing especially at the crisis time.But I believe our goverment will do their best to hand with problem

but how is crime frommed? can pig frigth back?

[20thStDad]

Are all spammers foreign? Weird. Great response though, speak their language and maybe we'll get through to them.

[infinite_jim]

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_p...f_violence.html

[PureAuteur]

That was a good video, and I agree with his position. Given Houston's growth over the last decade, I'm surprised at how little violence there is in the city. It only seems to be a problem, because the media presents things in a way to get to our emotions, and then also the younger generation these days looks more hostile than previous generations, so there is this vibe present of potential for violence.

[TheNiche]

That was a good video, and I agree with his position. Given Houston's growth over the last decade, I'm surprised at how little violence there is in the city. It only seems to be a problem, because the media presents things in a way to get to our emotions, and then also the younger generation these days looks more hostile than previous generations, so there is this vibe present of potential for violence.

I have to completely disagree. If anything, the present generation of young adults is more pathetic and sheepish than it ever has been in the history of these United States.

George Carlin described it as the "pussification" of the American male. IMO, he was correct in that application of rhetoric.

[Jeebus]

Given Houston's growth over the last decade, I'm surprised at how little violence there is in the city. It only seems to be a problem, because the media presents things in a way to get to our emotions, and then also the younger generation these days looks more hostile than previous generations, so there is this vibe present of potential for violence.

Last night must have been a fluke:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/kho...al.c124313.html

[Rammer]

Crime has increased in my area...just as Gerald Celente has predicted for all the large cities.

In particular, those subdivisions which have a 'civic club'(like mine) instead of a 'homeowner's association' will be first to fall. Gated communities & patrolled areas will fare much better.

Gangs will grow at an insane pace in the near future.

[EMME]

Crime has increased in my area...just as Gerald Celente has predicted for all the large cities.

In particular, those subdivisions which have a 'civic club'(like mine) instead of a 'homeowner's association' will be first to fall. Gated communities & patrolled areas will fare much better.

Gangs will grow at an insane pace in the near future.

That sounds like fear mongering to me. I have been hearing about the increase of gangs for at least 35 years. They come, they go.

[Native Montrosian]

If the Smurfs come back, we're moving to Canada.

[RedScare]

Last night must have been a fluke:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/kho...al.c124313.html

Apparently, it was.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/6491551.html

[rsb320]

Jerome (CH2) just said that with these new reports being released, Houston is amongst the safest big cities in the country.

[RedScare]

Jerome (CH2) just said that with these new reports being released, Houston is amongst the safest big cities in the country.

BLASPHEMY!!!!

[Rammer]

That sounds like fear mongering to me. I have been hearing about the increase of gangs for at least 35 years. They come, they go.

During the last 35 years prior to 2008(1972-2007) we didn't have a worldwide financial collapse.

It just so happens that Houston is one of the last places to be affected. Stay tuned.

"When people lose everything and they have nothing left to lose, they lose it." - Gerald Celente

[WAZ]

Earlier this month, KHOU reported about the proliferation of sex offenders living in Houston’s Sunnyside neighborhood.

Sunnyside residents are right to be worried. Many of these guys have long histories, and recidivism is a very serious concern. On New Years Day, sex offender Larry Allen Rickets allegedly kidnapped and murdered Becky Hamilton. And sex offenders aren’t the whole story. An Urban Institute Study from 2004 found that a quarter of Houston’s ex-convicts are released to the City’s poorest neighborhoods.

There are many reasons poor neighborhoods absorb ex-cons. Ex-convicts are likely to be poor. They can’t afford higher rents in upscale neighborhoods. Landlords in these places don’t always screen tenants, so there is no protection on that front. Meanwhile, Houston has no limits on where sex offenders and ex-convicts can live (something the residents of Sunnyside are asking for). The only protection is from a 1994 state law that creates 1,000 foot “child safety zones” around places where children congregate – and the situation in Sunnyside suggests it may be too weak.

Unfortunately, it may be an uphill battle for Houston to put its own limits on where ex-cons can live. Miami took this approach, with a 2005 ordinance that prevented sex offenders from living within 2500 feet of a school. But they didn’t follow up with a facility or halfway house to accommodate the offenders. Miami’s sex offenders wound up living under a bridge, with no sanitation or running water. The City was sued.

As Houston moves into the 21^st century, this is an issue we must address. We’ve got to move past the “ex-cons have to live somewhere” mentality, and discuss what our options are. Just because a neighborhood is poor doesn’t mean it should be a “dumping field for anything that’s negative.” (as Sunnyside Civic Association President Travis McGee puts it). Surely there’s something we can do.

[TheNiche]

Although the recidivism rate of sex offenders would suggest that there is some reason to laws that prohibit their living within a given distance of schools, parks, and the like, I don't see much purpose in subjecting all ex-cons to the same rules. Speaking as someone that has actually hired ex-cons from neighborhoods like Sunnyside that are also in close proximity to Sunnyside and that has had zero problems with them as compared to the many problems I've had with non-ex-cons--and also as someone whose employment opportunity has allowed them to get their lives back on track--I don't think that your suggestion that ex-cons should be prohibited from living in any kind of neighborhood has merit. I think that banishing them to the unincorporated hinterlands would limit their access to employment and increase their recidivism rate. Nobody wants that.

[WAZ]

Although the recidivism rate of sex offenders would suggest that there is some reason to laws that prohibit their living within a given distance of schools, parks, and the like, I don't see much purpose in subjecting all ex-cons to the same rules. Speaking as someone that has actually hired ex-cons from neighborhoods like Sunnyside that are also in close proximity to Sunnyside and that has had zero problems with them as compared to the many problems I've had with non-ex-cons--and also as someone whose employment opportunity has allowed them to get their lives back on track--I don't think that your suggestion that ex-cons should be prohibited from living in any kind of neighborhood has merit. I think that banishing them to the unincorporated hinterlands would limit their access to employment and increase their recidivism rate. Nobody wants that.

You're absolutely right that ex-cons are not all alike. Sex offenders differ from murderers. Thieves are different. Nobody would say that a guy who used drugs and shoplifted as a teenager should be banished for life to the unincorporated hinterlands.

I apologize for painting with a broad brush, when it comes to ex-cons.

Still, in an ideal world, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Dangerous felons wouldn't be on the streets at all. The only ex-cons to be released would be the ones who pose no risk to anyone. Unfortunately that's not the case. Dangerous felons are released; and those dangerous felons too often wind up in poor neighborhoods.

We've fought over it before. I dream of a world in which "poor neighborhood" does not mean "crimeridden neighborhood." Places like Sunnyside have enough problems with gang activity and Illegal drop houses, among other things. Do they need to be overrun with a disproportionate number of dangerous ex-convicts?

[ricco67]

You're absolutely right that ex-cons are not all alike. Sex offenders differ from murderers. Thieves are different. Nobody would say that a guy who used drugs and shoplifted as a teenager should be banished for life to the unincorporated hinterlands.

I apologize for painting with a broad brush, when it comes to ex-cons.

Still, in an ideal world, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Dangerous felons wouldn't be on the streets at all. The only ex-cons to be released would be the ones who pose no risk to anyone. Unfortunately that's not the case. Dangerous felons are released; and those dangerous felons too often wind up in poor neighborhoods.

We've fought over it before. I dream of a world in which "poor neighborhood" does not mean "crimeridden neighborhood." Places like Sunnyside have enough problems with gang activity and Illegal drop houses, among other things. Do they need to be overrun with a disproportionate number of dangerous ex-convicts?

Do you have an idea in mind or wondering what can be done?

You're right, in an ideal world, there would be no ex-cons that pose a potential risk to others. The reality is that they all have to live somewhere and as Niche pointed out, to relegate them to some place that meets the conditions you propose, there would be an outcry from whatever area you shunt them to and perhaps be on Welfare to be able to afford the basics.

of course, that would need stores...nah..

Perhaps put them on an island in the middle of nowhere and airdrop supplies from time to time.

That would be a reality show to watch!

[TheNiche]

Dangerous felons are released; and those dangerous felons too often wind up in poor neighborhoods.

We've fought over it before. I dream of a world in which "poor neighborhood" does not mean "crimeridden neighborhood." Places like Sunnyside have enough problems with gang activity and Illegal drop houses, among other things. Do they need to be overrun with a disproportionate number of dangerous ex-convicts?

For most ex-cons, financial constraints mean that poor neighborhoods are their only option. At least to start out. Obviously it is impractical to distort the market values of housing to ensure their proportionate geographic dispersion. And it would likely be politically unpopular to grant them a housing voucher for some set amount of money per month. And as for Tax Credit or Section 8 housing, those developments are required to run background checks and to deny housing to convicted felons. And if the background checks were abandoned, you can bet that it'd become even more difficult for such housing developments to get past the NIMBYs so that those programs could be carried out in the spirit of the law upon which they were founded...not that it's easy, even as it is.

What real-world solution would you suggest as a possible solution to this real-world problem?

[AtticaFlinch]

For most ex-cons, financial constraints mean that poor neighborhoods are their only option. At least to start out. Obviously it is impractical to distort the market values of housing to ensure their proportionate geographic dispersion. And it would likely be politically unpopular to grant them a housing voucher for some set amount of money per month. And as for Tax Credit or Section 8 housing, those developments are required to run background checks and to deny housing to convicted felons. And if the background checks were abandoned, you can bet that it'd become even more difficult for such housing developments to get past the NIMBYs so that those programs could be carried out in the spirit of the law upon which they were founded...not that it's easy, even as it is.

What real-world solution would you suggest as a possible solution to this real-world problem?

There's got to be an island somewhere out there where we could put them all.

Like Australia!

[20thStDad]

What real-world solution would you suggest as a possible solution to this real-world problem?

There is only one answer. The Running Man. Or maybe The Most Dangerous Game. Either way, except the part where the convicted sex offenders have no chance of winning whatsoever. So yeah, kill sex offenders, period.

[24zulu]

Earlier this month, KHOU reported about the proliferation of sex offenders living in Houston’s Sunnyside neighborhood.

Sunnyside residents are right to be worried. Many of these guys have long histories, and recidivism is a very serious concern. On New Years Day, sex offender Larry Allen Rickets allegedly kidnapped and murdered Becky Hamilton. And sex offenders aren’t the whole story. An Urban Institute Study from 2004 found that a quarter of Houston’s ex-convicts are released to the City’s poorest neighborhoods.

There are many reasons poor neighborhoods absorb ex-cons. Ex-convicts are likely to be poor. They can’t afford higher rents in upscale neighborhoods. Landlords in these places don’t always screen tenants, so there is no protection on that front. Meanwhile, Houston has no limits on where sex offenders and ex-convicts can live (something the residents of Sunnyside are asking for). The only protection is from a 1994 state law that creates 1,000 foot “child safety zones” around places where children congregate – and the situation in Sunnyside suggests it may be too weak.

Unfortunately, it may be an uphill battle for Houston to put its own limits on where ex-cons can live. Miami took this approach, with a 2005 ordinance that prevented sex offenders from living within 2500 feet of a school. But they didn’t follow up with a facility or halfway house to accommodate the offenders. Miami’s sex offenders wound up living under a bridge, with no sanitation or running water. The City was sued.

As Houston moves into the 21^st century, this is an issue we must address. We’ve got to move past the “ex-cons have to live somewhere” mentality, and discuss what our options are. Just because a neighborhood is poor doesn’t mean it should be a “dumping field for anything that’s negative.” (as Sunnyside Civic Association President Travis McGee puts it). Surely there’s something we can do.

Ex-cons are not released to any neighborhood, they choose where they live. Crime is local, and transient, it affects us all. Specifically to your discussion, the sex offender problem does not belong to us, they created their own problem, so let them solve it - or, maybe we could call a sex offender summit, headed by a new Sex Offender Czar $$$$$$. All kidding aside, the specialized perversion of these criminals, is not criminal behavior, but rather an impulsive fetish that is a crime. You're not going to rehab these folks because of that fact - and, don't believe me, believe the history they certify by their failure to evolve. Leave them alone, stay out of their way, and get them off your conscience. As for Sunnyside, the least of their worries are sex offenders - it has become what the residents will tolerate. The government is not the answer to crime - never has been.

[TheNiche]

The government is not the answer to crime - never has been.

Seeing as how the government defines the law, it would seem that they're probably the best-qualified to enforce it. Do you disagree?

[24zulu]

Seeing as how the government defines the law, it would seem that they're probably the best-qualified to enforce it. Do you disagree?

Yes Niche, hear me out.

The founders vision was that people are the government, as established. As owners of that responsibility to self-discipline, we become complacent - and so do politicians. Countries, cities, groups, and yes - neighborhoods, are what they are, because of the actions of the citizens therein. Some, don't like the taste of what they tolerate, and blame it on this Government boogyman that doesn't exist. A good example was... for sake of discussion, Neighborhood A: Screaming for police action against dangerous gangs of kids roaming the streets, criminal mischief running rampant, and rising burglaries. Subsequent to their complaints, a law enforcement task force was activated, and the bad guys were caught in the act. It was their own children! Allowed to roam the streets at all hours, of day, and night - not by the government - by the parents. The residents didn't like that, so they wanted to sue law enforcement, and the county, et al, magnus infinitum. [ Neighborhood A is not an anomoly ] Later, they met, and came to grips with the problem, and tackled it with community-actioned self-discipline, within the family, and on their street. It is the only way to turn it around, as there are not enough policemen, or government officials, or tax money to force a change of that scope, plus... where is the free man in a police state? I've personally witnessed this from the front line, for over 40 years. Government is the people ... I'll save you ... my class on the Constitution was just about to start. I do apologize for the length of my reply, but not the depth of my passion in regard to the law, and We The People.

I'm sure that Col. Crockett would agree that we're on the same page, I just used more letters, commas, and stuff.