Crime and Punishment

[John]

Elaboration would still be helpful though

 

[Sam]

The politest thing I can say to that is 'you have no idea'. As clearly you don't.

Oh wow, what a stunning retort, I think my well-reasoned argument has been well and truly toppled by that evidential tour-de-force. :

Given that I've never seen a crime taking place in 21 years of walking the streets, I don't believe you, unless you were walking around in Mogadishu.

'Bobbies on the beat' is tabloid fantasy.

I quote from Nick Davies, investigative journalist:

"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."

 

[Poisson]

Elaboration would still be helpful though

Pushing pens would be having to write up about petty crimes then file it correctly and pass it on to whoever.

I don't go against the idea of looking at evidence etc but for the average officer working the streets, they need to be out there not stuck at HQ.

 

[pluk]

Given that I've never seen a crime taking place in 21 years of walking the streets, I don't believe you, unless you were walking around in Mogadishu.

Don't then. I'm not here to brag to a bunch of people I don't know about stuff that hasn't happened. I thought I'd inform you of an error you made in your judgement of how policing works, but clearly you hold all possible human knowledge already so I won't bother.

Having said that, it would be fair to say the area I police may be quite well compared to Mogadishu (although I must confess to not being totally up to speed with Somalian crime stats).

Elaboration would still be helpful though

Basically, it's hot outside and I've popped in for lunch. I've got better things to do in the sun than sit in here on this so I'll elaborate later unless the conversation has moved on to fantasy worlds new.

Indeed, but then you'd have back office staff + police on the beat which increases the overall cost of policing.
So what happens then is police offers are cut. Cue OUTRAGE.
So back office staff are sacked so more police can be hired. Cue GREAT HEADLINES.
Then police have to do more paperwork because there's no-one else to do it. Cue OUTRAGE.
And so it goes.

This is what has been happening in cycles over and over for about 15 years. No one has learnt though and it is happening again right now!

>>Edit>> The link pluk provided comes into the area of "Restorative Justice", which, as he rightly says, is not suitable for everything, but I'm a bit more optimistic about it than he seems to be. Having criminals come face-to-face with victims and learning of the effect that their crime has had on real people has been shown to be very effective in preventing re-offending. I'd like to see an expansion - but sadly, it's a key area that the Mail and others can get their teeth into the government for "going soft" on offenders. The fact that it's effective would appear to be irrelevant. ???

I'm not sure I was at all unoptimistic about it? It is win win win (victim, suspect, police), and in my opinion should be used whenever the victim wants it regardless of 'aggravating factors' which currently limit its use.

pluk you obviously know more about Police paperwork then I do but would a separate set of staff in an office doing paperwork of crimes whilst the actual trained police are on the beat be advantageous? So crim gets brought in and all paperwork is completed by office staff with the info supplied by officers when the crim was brought in. More police would be available to fight crime then instead of fighting paperwork.

I can see how there could some advantages (especially in terms of cost) of that system and it is in fact used by some forces. But I believe the best person to investigate crime is a police officer who is trained and experienced to do so, and fully understands the case inside out rather than someone that picks it up halfway through back at the station. It takes almost as long to write up a complex handover as it does to just deal with the prisoner yourself!

Fact is though, most of the paperwork that sucks away our time is that completed at incidents we have been called to, not in the station.

 

[Sam]

You still haven't provided any evidence at all, beyond anecdotal, that 'bobbies on the beat' works (because it doesn't).

On the other hand, I have provided evidence to the contrary, a pretty damning quote from a former President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, no less.

 

[Poisson]

I can see how there could some advantages (especially in terms of cost) of that system and it is in fact used by some forces. But I believe the best person to investigate crime is a police officer who is trained and experienced to do so, and fully understands the case inside out rather than someone that picks it up halfway through back at the station. It takes almost as long to write up a complex handover as it does to just deal with the prisoner yourself!

Fact is though, most of the paperwork that sucks away our time is that completed at incidents we have been called to, not in the station.

I will hold my hands up and say that I am not completely right. Thanks for correcting me

 

[pluk]

You still haven't provided any evidence at all, beyond anecdotal, that 'bobbies on the beat' works (because it doesn't).

On the other hand, I have provided evidence to the contrary, a pretty damning quote from a former President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, no less.

Well done, so you did. Have a coconut.

Look again at what that quote actually says. It is not effective today as there are not enough police per population to cover the land in the numbers required.

In the past, when there were the numbers, it did work. So more would be a good thing, it could work properly again.

I think you summed up your ignorance on the subject in an earlier post...

What is this 'pushing pens' thing, is it a euphemism for examining evidence and actually solving crimes rather than just aimlessly wandering the streets?

No bobby on the beat has ever been 'aimlessly wandering the streets'. It has never meant that, not even when Enid Blyton was around. Streets are patrolled according to crime trends and intelligence, whether that be a random Tuesday morning or a Saturday afternoon football match. We put ourselves in the places where we think crime will happen. And often we are right, and it does, and we catch them.

The other way is what we call 'fire-fighting' policing. Firemen don't go out to try and stop fires, they wait until they happen and someone phones them then they go. We have to do that too as we can't be everywhere but are you telling me that prevention is not better then cure? If we can stop it happening is it not better to be there and stop it? I guess you've not been the victim of crime then.

Anyway, sunshine time. Toodaloo.

 

[Tom]

Too much sarcasm going on here for me, however:

There is a place for random patrols in society, and Sam if you have never witnessed a crime in the streets during your 21 years (although I doubt you can remember all of them), you're very lucky and in quite a tiny minority I'm sure.

There certainly is a need for police presence on the streets several hours before and after football games and at other key strategic moments and in certain areas. Patrols in areas where there is renowned antisocial behaviour etc are very effective.

Most violence that I have witnessed literally on the streets comes after around 2am, when the police bugger off from outside the nightclubs and bars in my locals towns. Police offers on the beat in key areas and/or times acts as a deterrent and has for centuries.

People like to see a police officer every now and then, even if it's in a shopping centre during a normal day. Sam, you're right that teh tabloids love it but that's only because it's something many people do like to see to reduce the FEAR of crime - hence the populism and latching onto it by the tabloids.

 

[Ash]

But wouldnt what Tom is saying put more police on the street if they are not doing the administation stuff.

More police on the streets is a bad thing. The 'bobbies on the beat' stuff is entirely a media fantasy, cooked up by the tabloids. Having police patrolling the streets (not counting special events and football matches and stuff) is a colossal waste of time and resources.

Nick Davies covers this in detail in his book 'Flat Earth News' about media distortion and lies. Think about it - in all your time walking the streets, have you ever actually witnessed a crime happening? Maybe once or twice, in a few decades.

Paying police to wander the streets is a waste of time that could be spent investigating actual crime or working on crime prevention. It's only effect is to reassure a nervous public, it doesn't actually reduce crime at all.

Your posts show a lack of knowledge of policing.

If there was a way for you to follow your local police around I'd say go and do it.

Or instead just watch Coppers.

Team Edit: SPG - Removal of offending comments.

 

[Sam]

Nobody has provided anything more than anecdotal evidence about the effectiveness of police patrols.

There certainly is a need for police presence on the streets several hours before and after football games and at other key strategic moments and in certain areas. Patrols in areas where there is renowned antisocial behaviour etc are very effective.

As I said in my previous posts, I allow exceptions for special events, sporting events, rallies and marches and stuff.

Team Edit: Removal of insulting comments.

 

[pluk]

Ash, your post is just insulting, and again provides NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE to back up your insults and rudeness.

and neither does yours, Sam.

In fact your original post...

More police on the streets is a bad thing. The 'bobbies on the beat' stuff is entirely a media fantasy, cooked up by the tabloids. Having police patrolling the streets (not counting special events and football matches and stuff) is a colossal waste of time and resources.

Nick Davies covers this in detail in his book 'Flat Earth News' about media distortion and lies. Think about it - in all your time walking the streets, have you ever actually witnessed a crime happening? Maybe once or twice, in a few decades.

Paying police to wander the streets is a waste of time that could be spent investigating actual crime or working on crime prevention. It's only effect is to reassure a nervous public, it doesn't actually reduce crime at all.

does not even include an opinion! What you have done there is taken someone elses opinion and then stated that opinion as fact. What sort of debating is that?

Because it is written on the internet does not make it true. Want me to find a bunch of links from people with plenty more knowledge on the subject than you or I saying that local policing is a good idea? Well I can't be bothered, but there are thousand upon thousand of them. So what? Does not mean any one of them is right. We might as well stop all this forum malarkey and just google what we want to know, whoever has the most hits is the winner! Conversation over.

Life is not Wikipedia, it does not need a reference for every thought.

I also note that you haven't bothered replying to this since I pointed out you had massively misread the meaning of the quote you used and went into some detail of how beat policing works. Debate? Pah.

I appreciate there is something of a crossover between this and 'controversy' going on but this is here as, Sam, I want to know. What would you do to cut crime and the fear of crime that is not putting police on the streets? I'd really like to know. Go on, have an opinion. Your own one.

 

[Sam]

I appreciate there is something of a crossover between this and 'controversy' going on but this is here as, Sam, I want to know. What would you do to cut crime and the fear of crime that is not putting police on the streets? I'd really like to know. Go on, have an opinion. Your own one.

OK, fine! I'll answer your question in two parts.

Cutting fear of crime
This is much less important than cutting crime itself. If crime is cut, then fear of crime will also fall. But it may still be above the actual crime rate, as it is now. This is clearly a problem. I think it's probably caused by the hysterical right-wing tabloid media, that exaggeration threat and creates fear around young people and immigrants, to name two examples. Stuff like this...

I'd regulate the media to an extent, and make it much more accountable than it is now when it prints distortions and falsehoods. I'd make the regulatory system for the press much tougher, hopefully similar to what Leveson will do.

Crime
This is obviously a lot more complex. We know from many studies (see The Spirit Level by Wilkinson & Pickett) that there is a direct connection between financial equality in society and crime. The more equal a society is, the less crime there is. This has been proved across the world. Here are two graphs, first comparing prison population to inequality, and then murder to inequality:

So I'd focus firstly on tackling financial inequality. This would be done with a much more progressive tax system, taxing the rich much higher like in the Scandinavian countries. This all makes common sense - people often turn to crime due to poverty. It seems obvious that if we had a fairer society, there'd be less incentive for people to steal. This has been proven above.

Secondly, I'd legalise soft drugs. A lot of police time is wasted on the absurd 'War on Drugs'. I don't really need to go over the vast body of conclusive evidence that alcohol and tobacco are vastly more harmful than LSD, cannabis and ecstasy. Not criminalising joint-smoking teenagers would free up a lot of police time, and reduce crime by definition. Drug related crime would be reduced, and the tax money raised by the legal sale of drugs would help fund public services better, including the police.

Job done.

 

[Towseriv]

The upkeep of purley evil prisoners is just stupid, the people I am talking about are those that kill, rape and torture people several times over. I wouldn't call it justice to kill them but good economic sense. While I would want to see this limited to those that have been caught "red handed" or confess to the crime. Sane or not then those people should be put to death.

 

[Martin]

The upkeep of purley evil prisoners is just stupid, the people I am talking about are those that kill, rape and torture people several times over. I wouldn't call it justice to kill them but good economic sense. While I would want to see this limited to those that have been caught "red handed" or confess to the crime. Sane or not then those people should be put to death.

Jesus Christ, for the third time, it's cheaper to hold people for life than execute them.

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.
The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.
The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.
The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Or to put it simply, life imprisonment costs about 10% of capital punishment.

Also, why 'should' they be put to death? If murder is so wrong shouldn't we not do it? And you're putting 'good economic sense' above 'justice'. I put it to you that that is a sickening position to hold.

 

[Simon]

The trouble with labels like "evil" is that it is a notoriously difficult concept to define. I wouldn't necessarily say that a murderer is "evil" as - and this has already been discussed - crime is much more of a complicated issue than just branding people with convenient labels.

In any case, as much as it's great to see new contributors, you've somewhat missed the boat on the Capital Punishment issue, but you can find a number of arguments for- and against in the early pages of this topic.

To avoid going over old ground. Can we leave capital punishment alone now and keep the topic moving forward?

 

[Dar]

I would like to see serial, remorseless, prisoners sent somewhere that isn't prison. I don't mean execute them, I mean remove them from the ENTIRE population. I don't have any idea what this involves, except sending them to some desert island, maybe send them to the Arctic to work on the science mission? I can't imagine it takes a doctorate to collate figures or work in the kitchen or the workshop.

I know it's not ideal but I imagine it would be more 'economically viable' than life imprisonment, whilst also removing the threat from the population.

 

[Martin]

I would like to see serial, remorseless, prisoners sent somewhere that isn't prison. I don't mean execute them, I mean remove them from the ENTIRE population. I don't have any idea what this involves, except sending them to some desert island, maybe send them to the Arctic to work on the science mission? I can't imagine it takes a doctorate to collate figures or work in the kitchen or the workshop.

I know it's not ideal but I imagine it would be more 'economically viable' than life imprisonment, whilst also removing the threat from the population.

We already did that, it's called Australia.

I don't know, it makes sense, but it could still create problems. I'll think about it more deeply then reply properly to it later. It's an interesting turn to the discussion though if people want to consider alternative punishments for serious crimes.

 

[John]

I don't think this graph is anywhere near as conclusive as the trendline on it implies. The data is massively distorted by the huge murder rate of the USA. If we ignore this outlier it would appear there is no significant correlation between income inequality and the homicide rate. As for the other graph prison population isn't a perfect reflection of crime rate - the nature of the legal justice system has a huge effect too (average sentence length for a given crime is key here, as is the likelihood of a crime leading to prosecution).

That's not to say there is no relation between a wealth gap and crime, but as a mathematician I'm always hesitant to draw firm conclusions from correlations.

 

[pluk]

OK, fine! I'll answer your question in two parts.
........
Job done.

You see, wasn't hard, was it?

And as usual I broadly agree with what you say (as I often do). You just put it in such an abrasive and illogical manner before, I was kind of goading you after reading 'controversy' where I'll post some thoughts later.

I still don't quite see how wanting less police on the streets would be a good thing, even with the ideas you put forward in place. You can make everything as level and fair as you can, but someone will still want to burgle your house and rape your sister. That is the way of the world and I don't see a better way of fighting that, where it does occur, than with an high police presence deterring and detecting crime. How do you make the leap of having other good ideas to neighbourhood policing being a bad idea?

Somewhat surprised to see a free spirit such as yourself advocating censorship of the press, but they do print a lot of sensationalist nonsense which often really does make policing much more difficult than it needs to be. A perfect example of this was last years riots which I am certain would not have spread to anything like the scale it did if the media had shown a bit of common sense and restraint in the coverage.

 

[Towseriv]

The upkeep of purley evil prisoners is just stupid, the people I am talking about are those that kill, rape and torture people several times over. I wouldn't call it justice to kill them but good economic sense. While I would want to see this limited to those that have been caught "red handed" or confess to the crime. Sane or not then those people should be put to death.

Jesus Christ, for the third time, it's cheaper to hold people for life than execute them.

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.
The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.
The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.
The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Or to put it simply, life imprisonment costs about 10% of capital punishment.

Also, why 'should' they be put to death? If murder is so wrong shouldn't we not do it? And you're putting 'good economic sense' above 'justice'. I put it to you that that is a sickening position to hold.

I'm not talking about maintaining a death row where prisoners stay for years I'm talking about a death row where prisoners are executed within 60 days of sentence.

Also my label of evil I feel (and i'm sure most GP) would be as I said serial killers etc

However it would seem from Simon that new contributors although welcomed need to be directed to his conversation only so I wont post again on this topic since its clearly a members only club (in his eyes at least.