{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018159806295399514, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.774590163934426, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Explaining Regional and Urban Variation in Crime : A Review of Research by Graham

Beginning with the moral statisticians Guerry and Quetelet and continuing to the present, criminologists have repeatedly shown that serious crime rates vary across geographic units. The most prominent framework for explaining this variation is the macrosocial perspective, which asserts that the crime rate is a reflection of social organization. In this paper, I review research from the past few decades that examines the distribution of crime across regions, metropolitan areas, cities, and neighborhoods. Research on the regional variability in crime primarily has focused on explaining Southern/non-Southern differences in homicide through two theoretical models: the Southern culture of violence and economic deprivation. Despite some inconsistency in this literature, there is considerable evidence that supports each view. Studies examining variation in crime across cities and metropolitan areas have mostly focused on two explanatory perspectives: social stratification and social control. Within the social stratification literature, there is a lively debate between proponents of absolute and relative deprivation models. Although the evidence is somewhat mixed, research suggests that as both absolute and relative deprivation increase, there is a corresponding increase in aggregate crime rates. Research on the social control perspective generally supports the view that cities and metropolitan areas with higher levels of informal social control (e.g., family structure, residential stability) have lower crime THE NATURE OF CRIME: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE