I'm not saying that you are wrong Sam, but it seems (at least to me) to be counter-intuitive that patrols would be ineffective against stopping crime, just by the fact that having the police spread out, means that they are covering more ground and can respond to calls more immediately?
Personally, I think it's perfectly acceptable for the numbers of police both behind the scenes and on the streets to increase. I would have thought that the roles fulfill different purposes but both have their own effective applications.
That being said, as I've already expressed earlier in the topic, I think investing more money on stopping the causes of crime should be a higher priority to policing.
MrMutterson said:
I don't disagree that there are reasons and causes for crime. Poverty defiantly breeds crime, I'm just saying that it's is one area of a much bigger picture.
Greed, "because I can" and an unwillingness to get of your backside and earn something along with upbringing and peer pressure also apply.
Stealing from the local supermarket to feed and clothe your family because you can't afford to for whatever reason is one thing, going on the rob in asda and nicking a widescreen tv, 50 bluerays and 3 Xboxes is a little different.
I spent 8 years dealing with this day in day out and well aware that the wealthy steal the middle class steal and the working class steal poverty can't really be blamed in all cases.
Crime statistics are also recorded on the place the crime happened, not where the offender lives.
People that live in poor areas generally have older cars, poor home security etc which is a far easier target than a big house with CCTV and a new BMW on the drive. Because of this crime is high in these poorer areas. I'm not suggesting for one minute that this is the only reason at all. But as with most figures they are not a true representation of fact.
My point being that the person up the road who has a better home more money etc can still walk down the road and screw over the people less fortunate.
Sorry for a long wait for my reply, but having got involved with other threads, this one slipped my mind.
You start off by saying that you recognise that poverty breeds crime, but then you go on to contradict yourself by making out that the working, middle and wealthy upperclasses steal just as much.
That's simply not the case. We've established that there is a direct correlation between the economic deprived and crime, and there has to be a reason for that. You site greed as a reason, but I would argue it has to do with low aspirations again. If you think you are never going to be able to afford the simple luxuries in life, if you are stuck in a spiral of poverty because the school you went to was terribly deprived, and your chances of success are slim, then you have nothing to lose and turn to crime to achieve your goals.
Also, isn't it another indicator of how low aspirations are that of all the things people could steal, they choose TVs and games consoles? In the grand scheme of things, those items are not exactly bars of gold and piles of diamonds but what they are, are materialistic items which are idolised in the media. That's another contributing factor; if you are poor, you are constantly surrounded by advertising for expensive luxury items that the comfortable middle classes take for granted, not really understanding how lucky they are. I don't think it's any wonder that kids turn to petty crime in these circumstances.
If you are suggesting that those of wealthier backgrounds come into the poorer areas to commit crimes, that doesn't really make sense. First of all that's pure speculation with no evidence and secondly why would people steal something of less value then what they already own?
I don't for one minute think the world owes anyone a favour and I don't see how society as a whole can be blamed for the minority that for whatever reason ends up in the criminal system. I think people believing the world owes them is part of the problem, you don't get handed anything in life unless you are in the very small minority of the rich and famous. The majority of society goes out there and makes it happen for themselves in whatever way they can and the majority manage to do it within the confines of the law!
If you are dealt a bad card and are born into poverty then yes, the world does owe you a favour because you got unlucky and the only decent thing to do is to try to help the situation. Even if you are not born into it, and by some bad luck you fall into poverty, then yes the world does owe you a favour because its unlucky and it could quite easily happen to any of us. It's the system of society - working together not against one another.
Also, it's not true that you don't get handed anything in life, some people get given a private education, some people are born into a comfortable life whilst others are not, amongst many, many other inequalities. That has to be offset by investing in those who got unlucky (and by extension it is beneficial to everyone as it tackles one of the most major reasons for crime).
Society's aim is to work together for a better future, every crime committed is society having failed to prevent it from happening and fulfilling the social requirements of the criminal. We are all responsible for everyone and everything.
Like it or loathe it, agree with the measures I support or not: it is just blatant that social and economic inequality is major contributing cause of crime. You can continue down the route of punishment which is much less effective with dealing with the problem, or you can try to stop it from happening in the first place.
