Crime and Punishment

[Sam]

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.

Well yes, obviously. But can you not see why that's a totally absurd point? OBVIOUSLY there would be less crime if there was a policeman watching over literally every street in Britain. Firstly, it has nothing to do with patrols, because it's not a patrol. They're stationary. But as you say, it's so staggeringly impossible that as a hypothetical construct, it adds nothing to the case for patrols.

It's like saying "Well, if the government could give everyone in Britain £100,000, then the economy would be fine, so therefore that proves that giving everyone £20 is a good policy." It proves nothing.

Edit: Ash, I'm not going to reply to your last post because it's pretty much unreadable, it's so badly written. Nothing against you, but it really is impossible to coherently reply to something that difficult to read and understand.

 

[Dar]

In my opinion, something like the effectiveness of police "beat bobbies" is VERY difficult to statistically measure. To use the study that you proposed, Sam.

Firstly it's from near on 40 years ago, whilst that doesn't mean it's useless by any means, I imagine that both criminal habits and policing methods have changed a great deal in that time.

Secondly, was this study publicised beforehand? Could the criminals have planned their dastardly deeds around the information given?

Thirdly, as pluk has said, crime doesn't always follow a pattern. If the same test were performed today, there could be a mass spate of petty thefts in the area without a patrol and then next month in a different area because the first had been bleed dry the month before.

Fourthly(?), crime that isn't caught by police relies on the public reporting the crime. If someone has something small and insignificant stolen are they going to go through the rigmarole of reporting it? Whereas if the policeman officer was on patrol they would have caught it and it would have been recorded.

 

[Ash]

Edit: Ash, I'm not going to reply to your last post because it's pretty much unreadable, it's so badly written. Nothing against you, but it really is impossible to coherently reply to something that difficult to read and understand.

It reads fine to me, never mind. Hopefully everyone else can read it?

Its ok, the discussion is pretty much finished for that part from what I can see anyway.

Perhaps I should put the entire post in quotes and you might be able to understand?

""

 

[Tom]

Your example of a situation in China four decades ago does not help your case when talking about 21st century Britain.

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.

Touche on Kansas, I made a mistake there but 40 years ago anywhere is irrelevant - not least in the United States of Handheld Guns.

I was addressing the ridiculousness of the situation - someone demanding statistical evidence when they haven't witnessed a street crime themselves. I took a swipe at your credibility but didn't go as far to say I/we're right and you're wrong.

That's it from me tonight anyway, tiredness one when it rendered my A Level in geography useless.

 

[BigT]

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.

Well yes, obviously. But can you not see why that's a totally absurd point? OBVIOUSLY there would be less crime if there was a policeman watching over literally every street in Britain. Firstly, it has nothing to do with patrols, because it's not a patrol. They're stationary. But as you say, it's so staggeringly impossible that as a hypothetical construct, it adds nothing to the case for patrols.

It's like saying "Well, if the government could give everyone in Britain £100,000, then the economy would be fine, so therefore that proves that giving everyone £20 is a good policy." It proves nothing.

Edit: Ash, I'm not going to reply to your last post because it's pretty much unreadable, it's so badly written. Nothing against you, but it really is impossible to coherently reply to something that difficult to read and understand.

Like I said its very difficult to prove one way or the other so I was trying to give a simplistic answer.
The piece I was reading basically was a study carried out in America where they increased the patrol numbers by a certain amount and it reduced the crime rate by quite a margin.
I can't remember the exact figures and I don't have access to it now as its on the laptop which is switched off and i'm not turning it back on now.
I'll post it tomorrow if your interested!

 

[Sam]

In my opinion, something like the effectiveness of police "beat bobbies" is VERY difficult to statistically measure. To use the study that you proposed, Sam.

OK fine, let's accept that as true, even if I don't believe it: that it IS difficult to statistically measure.

In that case what do we go on? I'd suggest opinions according to their validity.

I return to this quote:

The recently-retired president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir David Phillips, publicly derided the idea that bobbies on the beat are an effective device to prevent crime or catch criminals. He said last year that the whole idea came from an ‘Enid Blyton world’, whereas, in the real world, he said, most forces could put only one officer on patrol for every 14,000 people.

Given that he was the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, I'd say that qualifies his opinion hugely. More so than pluk, who as far as I'm aware is a regular police officer, not the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Surely his opinion carries more weight than any of ours, given that he has more knowledge and experience of policing than any of us...?

 

[BigT]

I don't know about anyone else but I'd like to read the rest of that article Sam, because he seems to be hinting at numbers more than anything else.
Perhaps you could post a link.

 

[pluk]

I return to this quote:

The recently-retired president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir David Phillips, publicly derided the idea that bobbies on the beat are an effective device to prevent crime or catch criminals. He said last year that the whole idea came from an ‘Enid Blyton world’, whereas, in the real world, he said, most forces could put only one officer on patrol for every 14,000 people.

Given that he was the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, I'd say that qualifies his opinion hugely. More so than pluk, who as far as I'm aware is a regular police officer, not the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Surely his opinion carries more weight than any of ours, given that he has more knowledge and experience of policing than any of us...?

Have you still not reread that quote. He is saying it doesn't work well now because there are too few police per population to do it effectively, not the the concept of neighbourhood policing is wrong.

You have also still not said why it is actually a bad thing to put more police on the streets. You've given other ideas to reduce crime, which are perfectly valid. You've quoted someone over and over, less valid as you appear to have miss understood them. But why do you think police on the street is a bad idea?

 

[Sam]

Here you are. Although it was published in The Guardian in June 2003, it doesn't seem to be on their site anymore. Though that shouldn't doubt that it was published, Nick Davies is well known as one of their top journalists.

You have also still not said why it is actually a bad thing to put more police on the streets. You've given other ideas to reduce crime, which are perfectly valid. You've quoted someone over and over, less valid as you appear to have miss understood them. But why do you think police on the street is a bad idea?

I don't think it's a bad thing to have police on the streets, I just think there are much better ways for the police to be spending their time. I don't think it's a bad thing to have them on the streets, it causes no harm, but I don't think it does much good either. Having them investigating crimes and working on crime prevention such as educating the public on securing their homes is a much more effective use of their time.

 

[pluk]

I don't think it's a bad thing to have police on the streets, I just think there are much better ways for the police to be spending their time. I don't think it's a bad thing to have them on the streets, it causes no harm, but I don't think it does much good either. Having them investigating crimes and working on crime prevention such as educating the public on securing their homes is a much more effective use of their time.

What do you think we are doing when we are on our patrols if it is not these things? I think your poor understanding of how you actually go about policing has clouded your judgement. Policing does not exist in seperate little pockets, it opperates as a whole.

If you are on patrol, on your beat, you do not stand there or wander around waiting for something to happen. You search and keep an eye out, yes. But you also talk to people who give you intel, you listen to live jobs coming in near you and try to get there in time to catch them at it, you speak to victims and vulnerable people in your area, you carry out enquiries relating to your live investigations (such as door knocking and CCTV enquiries), you call on known criminals to see what they are up to. This is neighbourhood policing, this is being a bobby on the beat. What else is it you think we should be doing?

 

[Sam]

I know exactly what neighbourhood policing involves. I know it's not just wandering around aimlessly. I said that for exaggerated rhetorical effect.

Merely describing what it involves doesn't prove its effectiveness one iota. All I am interested in is the evidence as to its effectiveness, which seems ambiguous at best and firmly against the idea of police patrols at worst.

 

[Ash]

Sam, your manipulation of ideas/information and your own hypocrisy astounds me.

You rave on about stats and figures being the be all and end all then.

Then when you get proved that this cant prove your point you back track and agree.

Then when it suits you go to using an opinion of someone, not facts or numbers an opinion, fail to give context to the quote from the former President of Association Of Police Constables. The article throughout discusses the lives of career criminals, and to a certain extent I agree with what it says but you did not share this in your quote.

These are the people who cause spikes in crime when released from prison or move to new areas. Patrols do not necessarily effect these people to a certain extent is true, but I do not believe for other criminals and them too a police presence does deter their criminal activity.

Not only that, as has been mentioned, you can not record what crime hasnt happened due to patrolling. So how ineffective can you prove it to be? pluk has given examples of Neighborhood policing that is patrolling and works. If xyz goods yard is known to have regular metal or diesel thefts at night. Do you not think going past at night would put a criminal off if they were waiting to break in or allow the police to catch someone in the act perhaps? There arent the resources to put somebody their 24/7 so a patrol will have to do with reports as to when its checked so this can be monitored. Patrols with statistics! Enjoy

Policing hasnt caused changes in crime levels, society has. This has always been the case.

 

[Sam]

*sigh*

Did you actually read my post? I didn't backtrack at all. I entirely believe that evidence and statistics is the only way to judge the effectiveness of this.

What I was doing was playing Devil's Advocate - I was going along with Dar's opinion that statistics can't prove anything in this debate temporarily, and then used that quote to prove that even if you believe that, the anecdotal evidence from top police officers still points to patrols being ineffective.

(to quote myself: OK fine, let's accept that as true, even if I don't believe it: that it IS difficult to statistically measure.)

Please pay closer attention next time so I don't have to waste my time writing posts like this, explaining what is obvious to everyone else.

Policing hasnt caused changes in crime levels, society has. This has always been the case.

Ahh wonderful! You agree with me then that police patrols have no effect on crime levels! Since according to you: "policing hasnt caused changes in crime levels... this has always been the case". Marvellous, I'll put a brew on.

 

[Ash]

*sigh*

Did you actually read my post? I didn't backtrack at all. I entirely believe that evidence and statistics is the only way to judge the effectiveness of this.

What I was doing was playing Devil's Advocate - I was going along with Dar's opinion that statistics can't prove anything in this debate temporarily, and then used that quote to prove that even if you believe that, the anecdotal evidence from top police officers still points to patrols being ineffective.

(to quote myself: OK fine, let's accept that as true, even if I don't believe it: that it IS difficult to statistically measure.)

Please pay closer attention next time so I don't have to waste my time writing posts like this, explaining what is obvious to everyone else.

Policing hasnt caused changes in crime levels, society has. This has always been the case.

Ahh wonderful! You agree with me then that police patrols have no effect on crime levels! Since according to you: "policing hasnt caused changes in crime levels... this has always been the case". Marvellous, I'll put a brew on.

Of course I didnt read your post, I just plucked the thoughts of of thin air. You did backtrack but apparently as you now say it was due to playing "devils advocate", thats useful. Your quote points to the effect of patrols on career criminals, completely different to what you were discussing. So you were contradicting yourself by using quote that was taken totally out of context? But just playing devils advocate

Right....

Its ok Sam, ive already told you about reading posts properly Im pretty good at its and dis-proven your main point pretty well so far

I will do it again too:

My quote : "Policing hasnt caused changes in crime levels, society has. This has always been the case."

and

Your quote : "You agree with me then that police patrols have no effect on crime levels!"

Policing and police patrols are different things, please read things better. And no i dont agree with you

And to finish policing is a reflection of the society and how it allows policing, just incase their was any confusion.

 

[MrMutterson]

Just to try n support argument for back office civilian staff....

Starting wage police officer £25k give or take.
Starting wage civilian staff £17k give or take.

Training cost police officer £30k plus
Training cost civilian staff £5k or less.

(figures are rough but more or less accurate based on my force)

The public majority like to see police walking their streets, it makes them feel safe and reassured. This has been proved time and time again in the endless surveys and dip sampling that's done. It may not be the most effective use of officers time but as its the public police officers serve then they surly have a say in how it's run.


When you consider. Simple shop lifting offence can mean a police officer is tied up for several hours completing paperwork and interviewing an offender surly it makes much more sense to have the police officer arrest the offender, fill-in a quick form detailing what where and why then a civilian officer takes over and deals with the paperwork and the police officer returns to streets within 20-30 mins rather than 3-4 hours sometimes longer.

This way you actually need less police officers as there available more of the time so it doesn't mean extra staff at all.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[pluk]

I know exactly what neighbourhood policing involves. I know it's not just wandering around aimlessly. I said that for exaggerated rhetorical effect.

Merely describing what it involves doesn't prove its effectiveness one iota. All I am interested in is the evidence as to its effectiveness, which seems ambiguous at best and firmly against the idea of police patrols at worst.

I doubt you do know exactly what it involves Sam, again your assumed complete knowledge of life, the universe and everything in it is doing you no favours. You could use the experience and knowledge of others here to learn and appreciate reality rather than believing what some man I'm sure you don't know said on the subject 10 years ago as if it is the holy grail of policing.

Exaggerated rhetorical effect, eh? You wonder why your posts seem so ill informed then? I like that when the press do the same for their right wing agenda they are the root of all evil, yet when it suits your agenda it is a sensible way to make an argument.

As for the evidence to patrol effectiveness, we've been over this, haven't we. You can not prove a negative, a preventative like that. It simply does not work. It might hurt your head that this particular thing can not have a percentage or graph attached to it, but that's too bad. I put the challenge over to you then - devise me a workable study of proving the effectiveness of patrols and I will do my damnedest to implement it.

And I am still interested in what else you think police should be doing? If it's not this Sam, what is it? Are you actually calling for the disbandment of the police as a whole? Because patrolling essentially is policing, there is a lot of other stuff that gets in the way of it. But what, physically should we be doing. Where should we be if it is not on the streets. Enlighten me, please.

 

[BigT]

Here's the link that I was talking about last night, I know it's the US but it's still worth a read because it shows one of the few actual implementations of increased police patrols and reduction in crime, rather than opinions and paper exercises.

http://www.fsu.edu/news/2005/06/24/more.cops/

I'm not saying its the be all and end all because it's not possible to prove 100% one way or the other and I've found articles that dispute the findings (although not disputing this piece).
Curiously most of the articles that dispute police patrols having an impact on crime figures seem to be in the Guardian as though they have a bit of an adjender going on.
I personally wouldn't trust ANY british newspaper to give an independent view on anything.

 

[Simon]

Just for myself, I think there is ample material in previous posts that does everything you ask, pluk.

You ask for a workable study, what about a repeat of the Kansas City one? That seemed to work?

You ask what police should be doing, I believe he's been reasonably clear on that over a number of posts. It's even been said that patrolling is part of policing, but that perhaps it is given far more priority than it deserves. I don't recall seeing anyone suggesting that all police should be pulled from the streets as an actual stated opinion, or indeed that the police should be disbanded: a rhetorical flourish of your own, pluk, that seeks only to ridicule, rather than rebut, your opponent's position.

I think we've lost sight of some of the premises of the discussion here, so perhaps you all should take a moment or two to review the last few pages before we start going round in circles?

Also: check out this page on the Straw Man fallacy.

 

[pluk]

Sorry Simon, I just can not agree that anyone has said what police should be doing. The closest anyone has got was Sam saying something along the lines of 'Investigating crimes and giving crime preventing advice', I have pointed out that both of these are done largely by being a bobby on the beat.

How do you / he think crimes are solved? Not from behind a desk. It is a serious question, where should we be if we are not patrolling the streets? It is while 'patrolling' we get these things done, while 'responding' (ie to a 999 call), we are dealing with that immediate problem only. Patrolling, responding and dealing (ie custody / interview stuff) are pretty much the three things you can be while policing.

I've got no particular agenda here, nor am I on the defensive of policing. There are plenty of things the police do badly, there are some things the police do terribly.

As for the study, it is largely irrelevant to us as not only is it 30 years old but in America they don't police in anything like the same way as us. It could be repeated here but as I've said, you still will not know what you have prevented by being somewhere, just because it does or does not happen somewhere else. Long term study trends maybe more so, but then in the long term it is hard/impossible to tell what other factors are influencing an area. The link from BigT above also counters that study, does not mean either of them are right!

PS, well aware of the straw man fallacy, we kind of use it at work. I'm merely responding to Sam in kind.

 

[Simon]

For the record, I don't believe you when you say you're not defending policing. But then, I don't blame you for doing so. It seems that there are aspects of your job that you are passionate about and you shouldn't make any apology for that. I'm glad that there are many coppers around who are like that.

Obviously, no-one here can hope to have your experience in this particular area; you know far more about what actually goes on than anyone. In these circumstances, your anecdotal evidence is very valuable, therefore, and useful in comparing to and helping to create statistical and more general evidence. There is a danger in using only the anecdotal in actually coming up with ways to improve though, which is why education (my area of expertise) is looking pretty shaky in the hands of these out-of-touch buffoons in Whitehall.