s, and in some years perhaps as much as two thirds of them (p. 153). Overall rates of violent crime per capita greatly increased --by 355 percent -- between 1960 and 1990 with the sharpest upward surge during the late 80s, which most observers attribute to the rise in the use of crack cocaine in the inner cities, the prevalence of handguns and automatic weapons and attendant gang warfare and associated mayhem (Cochran et al., 1996, p. 144 & 152).
Statistics vary, but UCR, NCVS and major city crime reports tend to agree that violent crime began to subside in the major cities in 1991-1992, resulting in what Steinberg calls "a seven year drop in violent crime" (1999, 3 January, p. L 4). The decline has been substantial. In homicides, for example, among males ages 18-24, 21 were committed per 100,000 nationwide in 1985, 41 per 100,000 in 1993 and 32 in 1997. In the 24-32 age group, the comparable figures were 21, 16 and 11 (Steinberg, 1999, 3 January, p. L 4). Adult violent crime dropped earlier than did juvenile violent crime, but the upward surge in juvenile violent crime, predicted by some conservative commentators, such as John DiLulio of Princeton University has not eventuated. Steinberg says that homicides among juveniles ages 14 to 17 per 100,000 were 10 in 1985, 30.2 in 1992 and 16.5 in 1997 (Steinberg, 1999, 3 January, p. L 4). DiLulio (1997, 8 January) has expressed skepticism about the FBI and Department of Justice published crime rates because of some changes in how crime rates are computed. He said in 1997 that "violent crime would have to decline by 10% each year from 1996 to 1999 just to get the nation down to the nation down to the level of victimizations in 1995" (p. 18). However, it is difficult to argue with the downward trend of the absolute number of homicides in some of the nation's largest cities:
New York 2,245 984* 56
Los Angeles 983 688 30
Chicago 854 791 ...