In a new campaign advertisement posted on former City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle‘s website, the mayoral candidate says: “When I came in, crime rates were at some unbelievably intolerable level.”

Were Honolulu’s crime rates really “unbelievably intolerable” when Carlisle was first elected in 1996?

Well, clearly this could be a subjective judgment. What’s intolerable for a prosecutor may not be intolerable for somebody else. But there are statistics that can give a good sense of how Honolulu compared with other similar cities at the time he came into the prosecutor’s office.

Civil Beat looked at the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports dating back to 1995. We analyzed crime figures in three separate ways.

First, we looked at rates per 100,000 inhabitants in the United States as well as rates per 100,000 inhabitants in metropolitan areas and compared them to Honolulu in 1996. From a big-picture perspective, it appears that Hawaii’s capital was actually relatively peaceful.

Looking at violent crime, murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault, Honolulu had drastically lower rates than the rest of the U.S. The murder rate on Oahu was less than half the average in other metropolitan cities, as was the case with violent crime.

The only area where Honolulu rose above the averages was in property crime.

Below is a graph depicting these numbers.

Crime Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants in 1996

Second, we compared Honolulu with a list of cities with a similar population.

The results were essentially the same.

With the exception of property crime, Honolulu again fell beneath the radar. Comparing violent crime, the city had 2,748 incidents in 1996 – far less than the 5,138 in El Paso, Texas; the 4,875 in Grand Rapids, Michigan; the 4,403 in Hartford, Connecticut; the 14,278 in Memphis, Tennessee; or the 5,571 in Richmond, Virginia.

Among that group, Honolulu also had the lowest number of murders, with 27 — 53 murders fewer than the average of 80 for the other cities.

In robberies, Honolulu was on the low-end as well. Recording 1,421 incidents, the city had more cases than El Paso or Grand Rapids, but far fewer than Hartford, Memphis or Richmond.

Crime Totals of Cities with a Comparable Population to Honolulu in 1996

These statistics don’t support Carlisle’s claim in his ad. But, perhaps he was speaking retrospectively. Meaning, that compared to the improvements that Honolulu has made during his tenure as prosecutor, crime in 1996 looks “unbelievably intolerable.” If this is true, Carlisle has a case.

Sort of.

Third, we looked at crime in Honolulu since Carlisle came into office in 1996. Property crime and murder have dropped dramatically, almost by half. Robberies declined significantly as well. Violent crime and aggravated assault have remained roughly steady. So, in this respect, it is possible that crime in Honolulu could have been considered “intolerable” in 1996.

Still, Honolulu was — and is — a very safe place to live.

Crime Totals in Honolulu Before and During the Tenure of Peter Carlisle as Honolulu City Prosecutor

Conclusion: This is a tough one. Carlisle knows more about crime than most of us. To him, a single murder could be “unbelievably intolerable.” But is that a realistic standard?

The facts we’ve reported here show that while his claim contained elements of truth, it was misleading because it completely lacked context. That’s why we gave it a barely true rating.

What rating would you give it?

(Note: Civil Beat used the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports definitions for violent crime, murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault and property crime.)