Crime Rates in North Carolina and How Courts Protect Victims of Violent Crimes
By Adam J. Langino, Esq.
Crime Rates in North Carolina and how Courts Protect Victims of Violent Crimes
North Carolina, a state known for its diverse landscapes and vibrant cities, has experienced various crime trends over the years. This article delves into the crime patterns in North Carolina, drawing insights from multiple reports and studies, including the 2020 North Carolina Violent Death Reporting System (NC-VDRS) Annual Report1, a study on crime patterns in Durham2, and a dissertation on community-oriented policing3. Additionally, the article explores how improved street lighting can significantly reduce crime, supported by evidence from systematic reviews and a randomized experiment conducted in New York City.4 5 Finally, this article discusses what to do if you’re a victim of a violent crime and the legal redress that may be available to you.
Overview of Violent Deaths in North Carolina
The 2020 NC-VDRS Annual Report provides a comprehensive overview of violent deaths in North Carolina. In 2020, there were 2,423 violent deaths, translating to a rate of 22.8 per 100,000 people.1 The leading cause of these deaths was homicide (35.8%). Firearms were the predominant method used in violent deaths, accounting for 68.1% of the cases. Handguns were the most common type of firearm involved, representing 76.4% of firearm deaths.1
The report highlights significant disparities in violent death rates across different demographics. Males were four times more likely to die from violence than females, with rates of 37.2 per 100,000 compared to 9.3 per 100,000 for females.1 Racial and ethnic disparities were also evident, with non-Hispanic (NH) American Indians and NH Blacks experiencing the highest violent death rates at 31.4 and 31.2 per 100,000, respectively.1
Homicide Trend in North Carolina
Homicides accounted for 867 deaths in 2020, with a rate of 8.2 per 100,000.1 Firearms were involved in 82.5% of homicides, with handguns being the most common type. The homicide rate for males was significantly higher than for females, at 13.5 per 100,000 compared to 3.2 per 100,000.1 NH Blacks had the highest homicide rate among racial and ethnic groups, at 23.7 per 100,000.1
Crime Patterns in Durham
A study conducted by Timothy Mulrooney at North Carolina Central University examined crime patterns in Durham, North Carolina. 2 The study utilized Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to analyze spatially-related crime data provided by the Durham Police Department. The study area encompassed 13 census block groups surrounding the North Carolina Central University (NCCU) campus.2 The study found that crime rates within the study area were significantly higher than in the rest of the city. For instance, in 2010, the total crime rate within the study area was 180.3 per 1,000 people, compared to 98.3 per 1,000 people outside the study area.2 Part I crimes, which include violent and property crimes, were also higher within the study area. The rate of aggravated assault within the study area was 7.64 per 1,000 people, compared to 2.55 per 1,000 people outside the study area.2 The study also highlighted the impact of socio-economic factors on crime rates. The study area had a high percentage of rental units, vacant homes, and lower median household income compared to the rest of Durham.2
Community-Oriented Policing and Crime Rates
Elizabeth Wrenn Johnson's dissertation on community-oriented policing in Carteret County, North Carolina, explored the relationship between community policing, crime rates, and crime clearance rates.3 The study found statistically significant relationships between community-oriented policing and both violent and property crime rates.
Community-oriented policing involves collaboration between law enforcement agencies and community members to address specific community problems. The study found that community policing policies, training, and problem-solving activities were associated with lower violent crime rates and higher violent crime clearance rates.3 Similarly, community partnerships and mission statements that included community policing were linked to lower property crime rates and higher property crime clearance rates.3
The study emphasized the importance of community involvement in crime prevention and the need for law enforcement agencies to build trust with community members. By empowering citizens to take an active role in crime prevention, community-oriented policing can lead to safer communities and improved quality of life.
The Impact of Improved Street Lighting on Crime Reduction
Improved street lighting has been shown to significantly reduce crime rates in various settings. This section explores the mechanisms through which enhanced lighting can deter criminal activities and presents evidence from multiple studies, including the Campbell Systematic Reviews4 and a randomized experiment conducted in New York City.5
There are two primary theories explaining how improved street lighting can lead to a reduction in crime:
Increased Surveillance and Deterrence
Improved lighting enhances visibility, allowing for better surveillance of potential offenders. This increased visibility can deter criminals by making them more aware of the presence of witnesses or law enforcement. The theory suggests that better-lit areas are less attractive to offenders due to the higher risk of being seen and apprehended.4
Community Investment and Social Control
Enhanced lighting signals community investment and improvement, which can foster community pride and cohesion. This sense of community can lead to increased informal social control, where residents are more likely to look out for each other and report suspicious activities. This theory predicts reductions in crime during both daytime and nighttime, as the improved environment boosts overall community morale and vigilance.4
Evidence from Systematic Reviews
The Campbell Systematic Reviews conducted by Welsh and Farrington in 2008 provide a comprehensive analysis of the effects of improved street lighting on crime. The review included 13 studies from the United States and the United Kingdom, and the findings indicate that improved street lighting significantly reduces crime. The review supports the continued use of enhanced lighting as a crime prevention measure in public spaces.4
A randomized experiment conducted in New York City in 2016 provides further evidence of the effectiveness of improved street lighting in reducing crime. The study involved the temporary installation of streetlights in public housing developments, with lighting dosage randomly assigned to different communities.5
Communities that received more lighting experienced a substantial reduction in crime, with a minimum 36% reduction in nighttime outdoor index crimes. The intervention was particularly effective in reducing serious crimes such as robbery and felony assault, which together comprised 72% of the nighttime outdoor index crimes in the treated areas. The cost-benefit analysis of the intervention indicated that the economic value of crimes abated due to lighting upgrades was approximately $770,000 per community per year.
How North Carolina Law Protects Victims of Violent Crime
Many people don't realize that commercial properties and businesses in North Carolina have a duty to protect visitors from foreseeable criminal activity. These businesses often profit from their visitors, and for decades, North Carolina courts have held that property owners must protect visitors if they knew or should have known that their visitors were at risk of criminal activity.
In North Carolina, courts consider several factors to determine whether a commercial property owner or business owner has a duty to protect visitors from criminal acts. The key concept underlying all court decisions is foreseeability. Essentially, an owner’s duty to protect visitors from criminal acts depends on whether such acts are foreseeable. This principle has been established in North Carolina law since the Supreme Court’s decision in Aaser v. City of Charlotte in 1965. See Aaser v. City of Charlotte, 265 N.C. 494, 498–99 (1965). According to this decision, property owners who invite others onto their premises for events must ensure that they are not inviting them into danger and must exercise reasonable care for their safety. Id. However, property owners are not insurers of visitor safety and are only liable for injuries caused by their failure to use reasonable care to discover and remove, or otherwise protect against, dangerous conditions, activities, or occurrences on their premises. Id.
In North Carolina, courts often require evidence of prior criminal activity on the premises or in the surrounding area to establish foreseeability. Typically, courts prefer to see more than a single prior crime to determine that the owner should have foreseen a future criminal act. In the case of Sawyer v. Carter, the court found that evidence of a single robbery at The Back Door Store five years prior, along with occasional robberies of convenience-type stores and other business establishments over an extended period in unspecified locations in the Hendersonville area, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Sawyer v. Carter, 71 N.C. App. 556, 562 (1984).
However, courts will consider evidence of the general character of the neighborhood where the crime occurred to help determine whether the commercial property owner or business owner should have foreseen the criminal action. In Wesley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., the court found that evidence showing the bus station was located in a high crime area, frequented by bums, prostitutes, and their pimps, and that fights from nearby nightclubs often spilled into the streets, along with common drug arrests in the neighborhood, was relevant to demonstrate the defendant's knowledge of the need for adequate protection of passengers. See Wesley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 47 N.C. App. 680, 685 (1980), overruled by Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics & Gynecology Associates, P.A., 327 N.C. 283 (1990), for other reasons.
In North Carolina, if the court finds that a business owner or commercial property owner should have foreseen criminal activity occurring on their property, the court will then examine the adequacy of the security measures provided by the owners. The courts often assess whether proper lighting, environmental design, security cameras, or the presence of security guards could have prevented the criminal attack. In the case of Vera v. Five Crow Promotions, Inc., the court noted that the record contained affidavits supporting the plaintiff's claim that Griffith and Stuart were negligent in leasing the 1600 Freedom Drive property without providing or requiring their lessee or sublessee to provide adequate exterior lighting and security, maintain the premises in a safe condition, and ascertain the level of criminal activity on or near the premises before leasing it as a nightclub. See Vera v. Five Crow Promotions, Inc., 130 N.C. App. 645, 651 (1998).
If the courts determine that the owner's failure to provide reasonable security was a contributing factor to the criminal act that occurred on their property and caused serious harm to someone, then the victim of that crime has the opportunity to hold the property owner and business owner accountable. Depending on the circumstances, crime victims may be entitled to recovery money for their past and future medical expenses, lost wages, future loss of earning capacity, and the past and future pain and suffering.
It is crucial to consult an experienced attorney in handling these types of claims. Throughout my career, I have dedicated myself to helping victims of negligent security hold property owners and managers accountable for the harm caused. You can reach me for a free consultation by clicking here.
Conclusion
I hope that you have found this article helpful. While crime rates may be rising, it is important to remember that businesses and commercial property owners have a duty to keep their patrons safe.
I am sorry if you are reading this if you or someone you love has been the the victim of a crime and seriously injured or killed. Over my career, I have handled many negligent security claims and I am licensed to practice law in Florida and North Carolina. If you would like a free consultation, click here.
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. North Carolina Violent Death Reporting System 2020 Annual Report. North Carolina Division of Public Health, May 2023.
Mulrooney, Timothy. Measuring Patterns of Crime in Durham, North Carolina. North Carolina Central University, 2023.
Johnson, Elizabeth Wrenn. Community-Oriented Policing and Crime Rates and Crime Clearance Rates in North Carolina. Walden University, 2017.
Welsh, Brandon C., and David P. Farrington. Effects of Improved Street Lighting on Crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2008. DOI: 10.4073/csr.2008.13.
Chalfin, Aaron, Benjamin Hansen, Jason Lerner, and Lucie Parker. Reducing Crime Through Environmental Design: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment of Street Lighting in New York City. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019. Working Paper No. 25798.