Consumer Affairs: Top 10 safest states...

[C.]

The 10 safest states

We ranked the 50 states for safety based on the amount of violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault), property crime (burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson), estimated budget per law enforcement employee and number of law enforcement officers per capita. Here are the top 10, with a further breakdown of each state’s safest large city, safest medium-sized town and safest small town.

1. New Jersey
New Jersey’s distinction as the safest state in the U.S. in our rankings is in large part due to its runaway score in the law enforcement officers per capita category, which is over 100% greater than the national average. In 2020 the state had 38,628 total law enforcement officers, or approximately one for every 230 people. It is fifth best in violent crime and fifth in property crime, but 47th in budget per law enforcement employee.

Safest small town: Mantoloking
Safest midsize town: Matawan
Safest large city: Toms River

2. New Hampshire
New Hampshire is the second-safest state in the U.S. and has the second-best scores for violent crime and property crime. There were just 2,000 violent crimes reported in the state in 2020, or 146.4 per 100,000 people. It ranks 27th in law enforcement employees per capita and 18th in budget per law enforcement employee.

Safest small town: Jackson
Safest midsize town: Hollis
Safest large city: Nashua

3. Rhode Island
Rhode Island has the fifth-highest score for budget per law enforcement employee at $159,528. It also has the seventh-best scores for violent crime and property crime. It ranks 17th in the number of law enforcement officers per capita.

Safest small town: New Shoreham
Safest midsize town: Bristol
Safest large city: Warwick

4. Maine
Maine gets the best score of all states for violent crime per capita, which is the most important factor in our rankings and counts twice as much as each of the other three. There were only 1,466 violent crimes reported in Maine in 2020, or 108.6 for every 100,000 people. Maine also has the fourth-best score for property crimes. It is 44th in law enforcement employees per capita and 27th in budget per law enforcement employee.

Safest small town: Ogunquit
Safest midsize town: Kennebunk
Safest large city: No city with minimum population

5. Vermont
Vermont rounds out the top five safest states, scoring the third best for violent crime and sixth best for property crime. In 2020, there were only 14 murders in the state, or 2.2 per 100,000 people — the second-lowest absolute number in the country after New Hampshire (12). It is 38th in law enforcement employees per capita and 17th in budget per employee.

Safest small town: Winhall
Safest midsize town: New Canaan
Safest large city: No city with minimum population

Eight of the 10 safest states are in the Northeastern U.S.

6. Connecticut
Connecticut ranks fourth in violent crime with 181.6 crimes per 100,000 people. But it gets only the 14th-highest score for property crimes. It is 28th in law enforcement employees per capita and 14th in budget per law enforcement employee.

Safest small town: Groton Long Point
Safest midsize town: Middlebury
Safest large city: Danbury

7. Ohio
No state outside the Northeast is safer than Ohio, based on our calculations. It’s only 18th in violent crime and 23rd in property crime, but it has the highest budget per law enforcement employee in the U.S. at nearly $215,000. That’s over $20,000 more than the second-ranking state in the category. Still, Ohio is just 26th in law enforcement officers per capita.

Safest small town: Hunting Valley
Safest midsize town: Perrysburg
Safest large city: Columbus

8. New York
Like New Jersey, New York earns a spot among the safest states because of its ratio of law enforcement employees to residents, which is the third highest in the U.S. at one per every 335 residents. New York also has one of the lowest property crime rates, ranking 10th. It has the 25th-best score for violent crime and is 13th in spending per law enforcement employee.

Safest small town: East Hampton Village
Safest midsize town: Town of Mamaroneck
Safest large city: Yonkers

9. Virginia
Virginia is the only state in the South that makes our rankings of the top 10 safest states. It is sixth best for violent crime and 11th best for property crime. It ranks 23rd in law enforcement employees per capita and 29th in spending per employee.

Safest small town: Cape Charles
Safest midsize town: Purcellville
Safest large city: Virginia Beach

10. Massachusetts
Massachusetts had the lowest rate of property crime in the U.S. in 2020 with 1,053.2 crimes per 100,000 people. The state ranks 19th in violent crimes per capita, 12th in law enforcement employees per capita and 22nd in spending per law enforcement employee.

Safest small town: Aquinnah
Safest midsize town: Weston
Safest large city: Newton

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/home...in-the-us.html

[pepper steak]

What a dumb list based on nonsense. The safest states are the ones where people drive the least.

[Northern Light]

As others have noted above, this is absurd. Why would weight the number of police or the $ expended on them in this at all?

When one is concerned with safety as it pertains to crime, all one is concerned about is the lowest per capita occurrence of crime, overall, and the specific community where one seeks to live or work.

The absolute body count, or robbery count etc. is the indicator of safety, the number of police change absolutely nothing. If there zero police and zero murders and robberies etc. You have what you need.

If you have 1,000 murders and 10,000 cops, you're still not remotely safe.

[TempleGuy1000]

I don't really think it's that bad of a list. It's basically the violent crime rate mixed with public safety spending. Pretty much every study shows Alaska, Arkansas, Tennessee, etc. have the most crime throughout. In the top 10, NY probably benefited the most from spending the most per capita.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ent_crime_rate

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

If you have 1,000 murders and 10,000 cops, you're still not remotely safe.

I agree with you in terms of living somewhere, but police presence often is an important component to tourism and public spaces. DC is a prime example of a city most people come away with feeling very safe, but generally has some of the highest crime rates in the country.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by pepper steak

What a dumb list based on nonsense. The safest states are the ones where people drive the least.

Wut?

[KevinFromTexas]

Whoa, dude, put down your bowl of chowder. There's a whole country out there below the mason-frozen line.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Blue states huh.

Where's those red state narratives? Oh.

Crime really doesn't have to do with red state/ blue state politicos but the socio-economics and demographics of the areas in question. Usually on the local level. Greg Abbott has fairly little to do with Houston's high crime rate and Austin's relatively low crime rate.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by JManc

Crime really doesn't have to do with red state/ blue state politicos but the socio-economics and demographics of the areas in question. Usually on the local level. Greg Abbott has fairly little to do with Houston's high crime rate and Austin's relatively low crime rate.

Really? I mean, to be clear, the differences certainly didn't begin with the current Governor of Texas (duh!); but I would argue that the socioeconomic disparities between different groups overwhelmingly falls on the desk of a succession of Governors.

The conditions leading to crime are not limited to socioeconomics but there certainly is a substantial correlation.

Admittedly, grossly over simplifying..........

The interrelated factors between socioconomics and crime can be described as:

- Poverty
- Inequality
- Lack of real/perceived opportunity for social mobility
- Insufficient supervision of children, often due to single-parent and high-workload parenting situations
- Too many people's employment prospects harmed by a criminal record, and insufficient education.

****

The Government of Texas could provide free contraception of all kinds to every low-income Texan; could pardon anyone with non-violent criminal convictions and a clean record post release for 5 years. Could cease to seek criminal convictions for 'victimless' crimes, and prison terms for non-violent ones.

The Government of Texas could support a higher minimum wage, Medicaid expansion, and paid sick days and significantly reduce the worst effects of poverty.

It could make getting a High School education mandatory (no diploma, no driver's license or right to own a car); and provide for free on-going or return to HS education for everyone up to age 21; and a separate program for older adults.

All of that and a good deal more falls on the desk of the Governor of Texas. So socio-economic causes of crime are the responsibility of the state.

****

Of course, is not as simple as 'progressive policies' at the State level, or many cities in the U.S. north-east would have lower rates of violent crime. But those policies do play a positive role, IF they actually reach the most in-need communities. Which they often do not; and that's a more complex conversation.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

Wut?

You are twice as likely to die in an auto accident as you are to be murdered. I think his point was that the media and many people are hysterical over crime rates but give zero regard to the dangers of creating a society where driving is the only option. Auto accidents are generally the leading or 2nd leading (after opioid overdoses - another issue that get's a lot of attention) cause of death for those under 60. But we never talk about it and just accept it as "welp, there's nothing we can do about that!"

Gang members killing other gang members is somehow way more tragic and deserving of news than our car dependency that kills twice as many people.

It would be interesting to see 'accidental' death rates (murder + accidents + overdoses + suicides) by county/city/state. That is a far better representation of safety than just looking at violent crime.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

You are twice as likely to die in an auto accident as you are to be murdered. I think his point was that the media and many people are hysterical over crime rates but give zero regard to the dangers of creating a society where driving is the only option. Auto accidents are generally the leading or 2nd leading (after opioid overdoses - another issue that get's a lot of attention) cause of death for those under 60. But we never talk about it and just accept it as "welp, there's nothing we can do about that!"

Gang members killing other gang members is somehow way more tragic and deserving of news than our car dependency that kills twice as many people.

It would be interesting to see 'accidental' death rates (murder + accidents + overdoses + suicides) by county/city/state. That is a far better representation of safety than just looking at violent crime.

what's more, car wreck deaths/injuries are MUCH more random than gun violence deaths/injuries.

yes, tragedies of innocent bystanders getting gunned-down do sadly occur, but even in a super violent city like chicago, if you aren't a male between the ages of 15 and 35 involved in the gang world/drug trade, your odds of being murdered plummet like a deep dish pizza dropped off the top of the sears tower.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

You are twice as likely to die in an auto accident as you are to be murdered.

I've dealt with a client who claims he would never ride on public transit bc thugs will murder him, but happily drives his SUV everywhere, and has been in a wreck that gave him permanent physical issues. It's bizarre.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Really? I mean, to be clear, the differences certainly didn't begin with the current Governor of Texas (duh!); but I would argue that the socioeconomic disparities between different groups overwhelmingly falls on the desk of a succession of Governors.

All true but in the end, it comes down to systemic issues that are far too complex to state whether or not politics would make a difference. Sure, Texas could do better in creating a better social safety net but even in states where that's a priority, these issues are still pervasive; New York and California for example have serious issues with crime, inequality and homelessness.

It could make getting a High School education mandatory (no diploma, no driver's license or right to own a car); and provide for free on-going or return to HS education for everyone up to age 21; and a separate program for older adults.

This would likely be illegal to enforce. At least in the US however, HS dropouts do have access to getting a GED likely at no cost.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by JManc

This would likely be illegal to enforce. At least in the US however, HS dropouts do have access to getting a GED likely at no cost.

The above referring to " It could make getting a High School education mandatory (no diploma, no driver's license or right to own a car)" as posted by myself.

**

Genuinely curious, why do you think that would be 'illegal'. I assume you mean unconstitutional, since laws can be passed by a legislature and make virtually anything legal until a court rules otherwise............

I don't remember a constitutional right to a driver's license in the U.S.

FWIW, I got the idea, because that is the law in Ontario; though the restriction only applies until you're 18.

Its also almost never enforced, but the symbolic value has been thought to carry some weight:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...article973176/

I do see evidence of similar requirements proposed in the U.S.

Indeed, it seems West Virginia actually passed such a law in the 80's!

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/21/u...s-license.html

[JManc]

Because you can't force a diploma on someone who doesn't want it.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by JManc

Because you can't force a diploma on someone who doesn't want it.

You know what the problem w/that statement is; you didn't follow the link I provided which suggests otherwise.

I wouldn't use the word force; I would use the word 'incent'.

Turns out, drop-out rates have lowered in jurisdictions adopting this policy.

I'm not suggesting its the best version of the idea; or that its effects will last, let's call that TBD.

But the preliminary evidence is that it helps boost graduation rates, at least in the short-term.

Evidence-based policy is what I'm all about. Who cares if its left or right, or vertical or horizontal or trapezoidal?

Only questions that matter (to me) does it work? Do the positives outweigh the negatives?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

You are twice as likely to die in an auto accident as you are to be murdered. I think his point was that the media and many people are hysterical over crime rates but give zero regard to the dangers of creating a society where driving is the only option. Auto accidents are generally the leading or 2nd leading (after opioid overdoses - another issue that get's a lot of attention) cause of death for those under 60. But we never talk about it and just accept it as "welp, there's nothing we can do about that!"

Gang members killing other gang members is somehow way more tragic and deserving of news than our car dependency that kills twice as many people.

It would be interesting to see 'accidental' death rates (murder + accidents + overdoses + suicides) by county/city/state. That is a far better representation of safety than just looking at violent crime.

I think self-induced poor health (obesity/smoking/drugs/etc) is even deadlier than driving, no?