-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
Crime and Punishment
- Thread starter Harv
- Start date
Sam,
whilst I agree to some extent that inequality casues crime, as a visible inequality brings out greed and jealousy and the "I want one of those but I can't afford it, so I will take it", I am not sure that those graphs show the whole picture. There are some anomalies that must mean that there are other factors.
Looking at the homicides per million graph
If we pick out the european countries (because we can make an assumption that their treatment of prisoners and approach to crime is roughly the same) and examine where they fall, we can see that Belgium , Austria, Spain, Germany, Netherland, Switzerland, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Austria and the UK then not only do they fall below the trend line but form a new trend line on their own which whilst probably not flat, is of a much shallower gradient. Sweden, Denmark, Italy and France are above that trend line but not by a vast amount. Finland and Portugal whilst being at almost opposite ends of the equality scale, have high homicide rates.
Originally I suspected that the mean income played a part as well as the gap between the richest and poorest but on doing a little searching I found that Japan who are on the far left of the inequality scale rank 23rd in the world on the Gross National Income Scale at $45180 us per annum, Finland are actually ranked 17th with $48420 us per annum. These 2 countries have vastly different homicide rates per million. (Source Wikipedia)
Whilst searching for date on the bit below I found this snippet which relates more to the part above so stuck in here. I wont quote it, as it is probably best read as a full article and may explain some of the variations seen in the graphs. Its facts seem genuine as I can find other sources (ok wikipedia) that can back up individual facts. Insider Times Article
Singapore, imprisons much more of its population that other countries, yet has a very low homicide rate despite being high on the inequality scale.. Could it be that it pre-emptively imprisons people, or does it have longer sentences for similar crimes? I can't seem to find a list of comparative sentence length by country, so please post if you do stumble across one.
I think what I am trying to say is that its a much more complex issue than just income inequality. That would seem to suggest that poorer people have lower morals which isn't true.
One point that I think you sort of touched upon (maybe unintentionally) is the definaition of crime. You could decrease crime rates by decriminalising the offence. Soft drugs is one example as mentioned and whilst I agree with Cannabis I would disagree with ecstasy (personal reasons). But converely, I would argue that killing someone whilst drink driving should be classed as murder. Again to clarify, I think I am saying that maybe the offence definitions that would impact on your graphs could be different in each country (resulting in longer sentencing or counting on the homicide graph).
The newspaper headline is just mathematcal tripe for the effect of scaremongering so I do agree with you totally on that. But WOW £9.50 holidays
Please excuse any spelling or grammar errors as I got new glasses on Tuesday and its been an odd couple of days trying to get used to them
whilst I agree to some extent that inequality casues crime, as a visible inequality brings out greed and jealousy and the "I want one of those but I can't afford it, so I will take it", I am not sure that those graphs show the whole picture. There are some anomalies that must mean that there are other factors.
Looking at the homicides per million graph
If we pick out the european countries (because we can make an assumption that their treatment of prisoners and approach to crime is roughly the same) and examine where they fall, we can see that Belgium , Austria, Spain, Germany, Netherland, Switzerland, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Austria and the UK then not only do they fall below the trend line but form a new trend line on their own which whilst probably not flat, is of a much shallower gradient. Sweden, Denmark, Italy and France are above that trend line but not by a vast amount. Finland and Portugal whilst being at almost opposite ends of the equality scale, have high homicide rates.
Originally I suspected that the mean income played a part as well as the gap between the richest and poorest but on doing a little searching I found that Japan who are on the far left of the inequality scale rank 23rd in the world on the Gross National Income Scale at $45180 us per annum, Finland are actually ranked 17th with $48420 us per annum. These 2 countries have vastly different homicide rates per million. (Source Wikipedia)
Whilst searching for date on the bit below I found this snippet which relates more to the part above so stuck in here. I wont quote it, as it is probably best read as a full article and may explain some of the variations seen in the graphs. Its facts seem genuine as I can find other sources (ok wikipedia) that can back up individual facts. Insider Times Article
Singapore, imprisons much more of its population that other countries, yet has a very low homicide rate despite being high on the inequality scale.. Could it be that it pre-emptively imprisons people, or does it have longer sentences for similar crimes? I can't seem to find a list of comparative sentence length by country, so please post if you do stumble across one.
I think what I am trying to say is that its a much more complex issue than just income inequality. That would seem to suggest that poorer people have lower morals which isn't true.
One point that I think you sort of touched upon (maybe unintentionally) is the definaition of crime. You could decrease crime rates by decriminalising the offence. Soft drugs is one example as mentioned and whilst I agree with Cannabis I would disagree with ecstasy (personal reasons). But converely, I would argue that killing someone whilst drink driving should be classed as murder. Again to clarify, I think I am saying that maybe the offence definitions that would impact on your graphs could be different in each country (resulting in longer sentencing or counting on the homicide graph).
The newspaper headline is just mathematcal tripe for the effect of scaremongering so I do agree with you totally on that. But WOW £9.50 holidays
Please excuse any spelling or grammar errors as I got new glasses on Tuesday and its been an odd couple of days trying to get used to them
Sam said:
Patrols work. I dont need to provide you with statistical evidence ive seen it first hand. Granted you may not believe me but I couldnt give a monkeys.
Policing is split into many different areas. Response, neighborhood, investigation, crime management to name but a few. They all have different roles, and granted the amount of times police actually "come across" a crime are few for certain things likely burglary/theft are few and far between but im afraid the police cant have eyes everywhere all the time.
But to then suggest that because there isnt patrols in an area that doesnt put off criminals from theft/criminal damage etc then you are just being stupid due to something which cant easily be proven.
Id like to know just how much time you think it takes the police to deal with cannabis use? Not only that these liberal views on LSD and ecstasy again suggest no experience in such matters, yes alcohol is a very large proportion of one of the causes of crime in this country but education would improve this. LSD and ecstasy are powerful mind altering drugs, far more than cannabis, tobacco and cannabis. Theres absolutely no place for these in a modern society. Then again I think theres no place for tobacco either but thats just me.
I agree that income inequality a massive problem but this is related to education, environment, upbringing, opportunity, health and media. Solving all those problems isnt easy.
Technology, information and education solves problems in our society. Why not introduce better education for all making them more informed of the consequences of our decisions? Only allow alcohol purchased using a registered credit/debit card so peoples alcohol consumption can be monitored? Why not install a drink driving machine to vehicles that must be used before they become operational? Or use laser guidance on cars to prevent accidents?
But well done for solving policing in 5 paragraphs, have a sticker.
Team Edit: Off topic content removed.
Martin
TS Member
It doesn't take a genius to realise decriminalising cannabis would save a ridiculous amount of money. And considering how harmless it is compared to alcohol and tobacco banning it makes no sense at all. Legalise it and tax/regulate it. It'll bring in a lot of money, reduce problems caused by shady dealers cutting it and mixing it with impurities and will stop criminalising people who aren't doing anything wrong.Ash said:
Personally I'd see all drugs legalised, for the same reasons. I believe what someone puts in their body is their own business until it affects someone else
Blaze said:
Never dealt with someone whos taken mcat? Cocaine?
It doesnt effect just them, it effects everyone. They end up in hospitals which I have seen literally take up facilities which could be used for others but then again that applies to alcohol a lot more. They can become abusive and confused cause them to become violent or go off wandering lots and lots of effects. Its society or the emergency services who spend their careers picking up the pieces of society. Go and sit in your local A&E on a friday/saturday night 11-4. Chemicals in peoples bodies are the main cause of people in there. Im afraid people cant help themselves but get help from everyone else no questions asked.
Legalisation of all drugs is a dangerous prospect, it wouldnt work. Alcohol is legal, taxed and controlled its a massive problem. Tobacco causes cancer and we still cant realise its not good for us.
Ash said:
Oh well, that's alright then. Your first-hand experience, and maybe even what your mate Daz says certainly trumps any collated or aggregate evidence that'd be provided by statistics.
If you couldn't give a monkeys, why enter into discussion? This is a discussion forum. You do know that, right?
I'm not certain why you needed to rant at Sam to explain something he's shown a clear understanding of in previous posts?
On the 'being stupid' scale I wouldn't put 'looking for evidence of a positive effect' up there. I may be wrong, but surely evidence-based policy making is a key part of actually having a functional, progressive society. I don't understand how you think anti-intellectual, anecdotal approaches to things can yield decent results?
So you get on at him for not giving an opinion, then post a really arrogant sarcastic reply when he does what you ask him.
It's really clear who's actually interested at all in hearing other people's opinions, Ash. A clue: it's not you.
Martin
TS Member
The draw of drugs is because they're illegal. It makes them exciting and exotic. In Holland, no one really cares about weed the way we do, because it's accepted. People do it responsibly, it's not stigmatised as badly as it is here. Obviously you can never cut down on problems with people overdosing on drugs and causing harm to others, but isn't it hypocritical to say you can put yourself in a dangerous state on alcohol, but ecstasy, or giving yourself cancer is fine by smoking, but you can't give yourself a bad trip on acid, even alone in your own house?
Humans have always sought mind-altering substances to heighten experiences, criminalising drugs goes against human nature. That's why we had the problem with 'meow-meow' a few years ago. People find drug that isn't banned>starts a big craze>bad people start supplying it laced with dangerous toxins>people die and it gets banned>the cycle starts again.
Maybe you have to be proven psychologically sound before being allowed harder drugs and they should only be available in certain, controlled places, but making weed illegal is just plain pointless.
Humans have always sought mind-altering substances to heighten experiences, criminalising drugs goes against human nature. That's why we had the problem with 'meow-meow' a few years ago. People find drug that isn't banned>starts a big craze>bad people start supplying it laced with dangerous toxins>people die and it gets banned>the cycle starts again.
Maybe you have to be proven psychologically sound before being allowed harder drugs and they should only be available in certain, controlled places, but making weed illegal is just plain pointless.
Sam
TS Member
Ash said:
How can you possibly know if police patrols work purely based on having seen them apprehend someone once? The only, I repeat only, way of proving if they are effective or not is a well-controlled statistical study across a broad area. Your anecdotal evidence is entirely superfluous to this debate.
I'm also interested that you've "literally seen" drug users in hospital "take up facilities which could be used for others" and have also "seen first hand" the effectiveness of police patrols. Are you both a doctor and a police officer, or just a public sector enthusiast, like a socialist train-spotter?
I think there is a mandate for creating a separate topic for the legalisation of drugs, but that its continued discussion in this topic is still relevant Tom. It's a massive issue in any discussion of "Crime and Punishment".
Simon said:
First thing first.
Who is daz? And why is he my mate? Added to that why is he telling me things about patrolling? I find it funny your discuss arrogant and sarcastic replies then open with one. Good work batman :
If you read what I wrote I said I couldnt give a monkeys whether people agreed with what I said, but I still felt it warranted being shared. Oh and a quick note, statistics dont measure everything, get over it.I dont think Sam has shown clear understanding in what has been discussed at all, hence why I wrote what I did. I tend not to do put these things for no reason. And it wasn't a rant at all, its an emotive discussion and im just wanting to put my opinion across. I dont claim to have all the answers, the perfect argument or piles of statistics to back up everything I write. A lot of it is opinion as it most on here when you get to the nitty gritty but its the joy of an opinion i suppose! Take it, leave it.
Again, please re read what I wrote, I said something which "cannot be easily proven" I didnt say you couldnt create evidence but how on earth to you suggest you measure whether a patrol has prevented an opportunist thief or another sort of crime? You cant. This then im my opinion undermines the theory that patrols dont work because you cant prove that they dont either. And for me id rather have them there than not due to what I perceive they are useful for. And no its not due to my love of Enid Blyton.
The last line was sarcastic yes, but I dont make any apologies for that. This is a huge issue that effects peoples lives every day who are cared for by the emergency services, who work in the emergency services and I find it offensive to suggest that a 5 paragraph solution is somehow to be taken as satisfactory.
Ive listened to the opinions clearly as ive replied to them, some I agree with and some I dont. But at least youve recognised the majority are just opinions. Thats a relief
Sam: Ive discussed this issue of patrols in the starting part of this post please refer to that re: what can and cant be proven.
Yes im a socialist train spotter and a public sector enthusiast, please stick your derogatory comments elsewhere and I will be reporting your post because of it just so you know.
Tom
TS Member
Forgive me, but this is outrageous and literally incredible.
We have a situation here of someone who claims to have never witnessed a crime on the streets of Britain arguing against people that have both witnessed and been on the receiving end of crimes in the street.
Common sense and thinking about what the consensus would be counts for a lot, a link to a statistical article cannot be possible on every occasion. However, I think most people agree that opportunistic and random street crime and violence does occur in this country. You need to have simply existed outside of four brick walls for more than a day in Britain to know that.
Why not let people defend themselves, or moderators intervene if they're being that hard done by. A point-by-point, name-mentioning several times account is a pretty cringeworthy read and equates to ganging up.
>Edit>>Sazzle>> Merged first post into second to prevent double posting
We have a situation here of someone who claims to have never witnessed a crime on the streets of Britain arguing against people that have both witnessed and been on the receiving end of crimes in the street.
Common sense and thinking about what the consensus would be counts for a lot, a link to a statistical article cannot be possible on every occasion. However, I think most people agree that opportunistic and random street crime and violence does occur in this country. You need to have simply existed outside of four brick walls for more than a day in Britain to know that.
Simon said:
Why not let people defend themselves, or moderators intervene if they're being that hard done by. A point-by-point, name-mentioning several times account is a pretty cringeworthy read and equates to ganging up.
>Edit>>Sazzle>> Merged first post into second to prevent double posting
Sam
TS Member
Please stop with the huge walls of quotes in every post, it makes the forum difficult to read. Please only quote the bit of Simon's post you specifically want to reply to.
No you're right. Statistics can't measure love, or jealousy or anger. Some things they can measure: effectiveness of various policing strategies, quality of healthcare, success in the education system. We have very complex sets of indicators to measure all these things. To suggest that statistics can't measure crime and effectiveness of policing strategies is a dangerously Luddite opinion. Crime would be undoubtedly higher if the police didn't use statistics at every level of their operation to determine how best to tackle crime.
Unfortunately in this case, the police go against the evidence and use a statistically ineffective method of policing to appease the tabloids, who run frequent witch hunts against public services. Unfortunately, the tabloid papers are like you - they react to something like this based on their emotions with a complete lack of statistical evidence.
You're using the wrong kind of approach to this problem. You're right, the effectiveness of patrols can't be measured in the way you say above. However, it can be easily measured by comparing forces that use patrols compared to those that don't, in a controlled test. Here is evidence from one such test in the US:
Ash said:
No you're right. Statistics can't measure love, or jealousy or anger. Some things they can measure: effectiveness of various policing strategies, quality of healthcare, success in the education system. We have very complex sets of indicators to measure all these things. To suggest that statistics can't measure crime and effectiveness of policing strategies is a dangerously Luddite opinion. Crime would be undoubtedly higher if the police didn't use statistics at every level of their operation to determine how best to tackle crime.
Unfortunately in this case, the police go against the evidence and use a statistically ineffective method of policing to appease the tabloids, who run frequent witch hunts against public services. Unfortunately, the tabloid papers are like you - they react to something like this based on their emotions with a complete lack of statistical evidence.
Ash said:
You're using the wrong kind of approach to this problem. You're right, the effectiveness of patrols can't be measured in the way you say above. However, it can be easily measured by comparing forces that use patrols compared to those that don't, in a controlled test. Here is evidence from one such test in the US:
The Guardian said:
pluk
TS Member
Sam said:
That's the problem with living in your statistical and reference based world though Sam, it is close to impossible to prove a preventative method in such a way. You can't see a negative like that.
I go out on patrol in an area that has seen a lot of theft from motor vehicles this week. That night there are none. Is that because I was there and seen by the thief? Or was it because the thief had moved on to another area, or had he night off. There's no way to know? You can't even look at how that works over a long period of time as there is no base number, no constant on which to match it against. No two places are the same.
A persons real life experiences are not superfluous to any debate. You may chose to ignore them if you wish, but it means a whole lot more to me than something you read somewhere once.
Sam said:
You think police officers don't end up regularly in hospital looking after sick prisoners or patients that Dr's and nurses simply can't handle? It is absolutely standard practice, I have seen it myself many many many times. And am fairly sick of the waste of resources all round that this involves.
Sam, you clearly don't know much on the subject that you haven't seen in a book or google. That is absolutely fine, I'm sure I don't know much about whatever it is you do. But you keep diving in with these extreme and definite opinions. Why don't you come in and discuss and learn, rather than trying to preach and do others down?
Sam
TS Member
Tom said:
What is "outrageous and literally incredible" is that you think because you think that somehow because you've seen a crime happen in a street, that qualifies your opinion on the effectiveness of various methods of law and order over mine. This topic is fast becoming a farce, where any actual statistical evidence is mocked and discarded in favour of anecdotal story-telling and conservative rhetoric.
pluk said:
I don't doubt that is true, but I don't think Ash is a police officer or he would have said so by now. That was the point I was making, which you comprehensively missed.
You're right, a real world experience is not entirely superfluous, but it pales in comparison to evidence based research. But that seems to be a dirty word in this thread, which is by now simply fear-mongering and meaningless buzzwords.
Tom
TS Member
Sam said:
I've described what I consider to be outrageous and incredible - your definition of what I find is not accurate.
I have seen no statistics that I can find relevant to street crime and police patrol effectiveness against it in this country.
Your example of a situation in China four decades ago does not help your case when talking about 21st century Britain.
Martin
TS Member
I've gone quite the last few posts, because, shock horror, I admit to not knowing enough about the subject to have an opinion worth posting.
I simply don't know either way when it comes to police on the streets. I've witnessed and been the victim of crime on the street, and think I've witnessed police stop or prevent a crime on the street, but this hardly proves either way how effective it is. I've always considered there would be some value to having at least some police walking the street, even as a psychological thing. Maybe not so much to discourage crime, but more for reassuring the public they're safe or whatever, I think that has some value, and certainly, walking past an officer on a street that felt a little 'dodgy' has made me feel a little ore secure in the past, but I don't know if the is any real world benefit.
I think that study Sam posted is really interesting. If it's not just an anomaly, and similar results are found elsewhere, then I think that goes some way to proving having police on a beat is largely ineffective.
I simply don't know either way when it comes to police on the streets. I've witnessed and been the victim of crime on the street, and think I've witnessed police stop or prevent a crime on the street, but this hardly proves either way how effective it is. I've always considered there would be some value to having at least some police walking the street, even as a psychological thing. Maybe not so much to discourage crime, but more for reassuring the public they're safe or whatever, I think that has some value, and certainly, walking past an officer on a street that felt a little 'dodgy' has made me feel a little ore secure in the past, but I don't know if the is any real world benefit.
I think that study Sam posted is really interesting. If it's not just an anomaly, and similar results are found elsewhere, then I think that goes some way to proving having police on a beat is largely ineffective.
BigT
TS Member
I've spent quite a bit of time googling to look into this tonight so I can back up any arguments.
Firstly as Ash said it is very difficult to prove one way or the other whether patrols work but what I will say is this.
If there was a police officer on every street corner then there would not be as much crime. Fact.
So what we are looking at here is a numbers game, it's obviously going to cost a lot of money to put a police officer on every corner so it's not practical but in theory if that was possible this proves patrols work.
Now what Pluk said earlier about targeted patrols in my opinion is correct, targeted patrols work and I would like to see more of them.
Edit: I can provide evidence for what I have written if required.
Firstly as Ash said it is very difficult to prove one way or the other whether patrols work but what I will say is this.
If there was a police officer on every street corner then there would not be as much crime. Fact.
So what we are looking at here is a numbers game, it's obviously going to cost a lot of money to put a police officer on every corner so it's not practical but in theory if that was possible this proves patrols work.
Now what Pluk said earlier about targeted patrols in my opinion is correct, targeted patrols work and I would like to see more of them.
Edit: I can provide evidence for what I have written if required.
Sam
TS Member
Tom said:
Kansas City is in the United States, not in China.
OK, stop everything else. Stop the debate a second. I have one thing to ask Tom, and I don't want him to get out of answering it. This is my one question?
How exactly does having seen a crime happen in the street, qualify your opinion about the effectiveness of policing strategy and disqualify mine?
Justify that logically, exactly why having seen a crime happen in the street means you're correct on this issue and I'm not. It's non-sensical. It's like saying someone is qualified to judge the UK government's handling of the economy because they have a tenner in their pocket.
Sam said:Please stop with the huge walls of quotes in every post, it makes the forum difficult to read. Please only quote the bit of Simon's post you specifically want to reply to.
Ash said:
No you're right. Statistics can't measure love, or jealousy or anger. Some things they can measure: effectiveness of various policing strategies, quality of healthcare, success in the education system. We have very complex sets of indicators to measure all these things. To suggest that statistics can't measure crime and effectiveness of policing strategies is a dangerously Luddite opinion. Crime would be undoubtedly higher if the police didn't use statistics at every level of their operation to determine how best to tackle crime.
Unfortunately in this case, the police go against the evidence and use a statistically ineffective method of policing to appease the tabloids, who run frequent witch hunts against public services. Unfortunately, the tabloid papers are like you - they react to something like this based on their emotions with a complete lack of statistical evidence.
Ash said:
You're using the wrong kind of approach to this problem. You're right, the effectiveness of patrols can't be measured in the way you say above. However, it can be easily measured by comparing forces that use patrols compared to those that don't, in a controlled test. Here is evidence from one such test in the US:
The Guardian said:
Love it, you pick out the points you think re-affirm your point and leave the ones that dont. Show me the quote, as you seem very affective at using them, where I (and these are your words) "suggest that statistics can't measure crime and effectiveness of policing strategies " and I will show you a liar. Please dont make things up.
Not only that as you seem to like name calling and evidence so much, please quantify this point for me "Unfortunately in this case, the police go against the evidence and use a statistically ineffective method of policing to appease the tabloids" because id like to see you do it. Or should I call you Sir as you clearly must be high up in the police to know this, no?
Contradicting yourself in your own post...? Whatever next.
You say
"they can measure: effectiveness of various policing strategies"
and then
"the effectiveness of patrols can't be measured in the way you say above."
Nice!
Before you attack police patrols with your lack of information and mis-information please have a think before you reply.
And thank you for your quote from the middle class centre left of all newspapers, the guardian, a establishment which can only suggest seems to reflect many of the views you seem to hold in this thread, sadly however this isnt the US and nor is it 1972.
What difference does it make how I saw what I said I did? I said thats what I saw or do you just immediately dis-believe me because I dont have a quote from it? You really are making yourself look daft. Dont worry Sam my opinion clearly means as much to you as yours does to me, not a lot. Cheers for coming across and offensive no-it-all who I think some of their opinions dis-proven in this thread pretty quickly, fact