• 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

Simon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really, I'm not defending policing. I will defend my own actions in a policing capacity till I'm blue in the face as I would never make an action I can not completely justify, but the police service as a whole? Not so much. It is simply incredibly badly run with too many decisions being made by people with conflicts of interest and a short term mindset to long term problems.

This includes a current trend for having less neighbourhood patrols, I'm lucky to still be doing the job I am. Where I am I can tell you that there has been a small growth in overall crime but a large growth in certain crimes you would expect police patrols to discourage, such as theft from and of motor vehicles and theft of metal. There are other negatives which I am less comfortable posting here as I'm not too sure what 'result' type information is for the public domain.

I will not claim that this is irrefutable proof that patrols do work as there are any number of factors at work, but it helps form a large part of my opinion. If there is a better way to police I'm happy to hear it and would be even happier to try it if it provides a better service and keeps people safer. I really do want someone to suggest what that could be.
 
That's fair enough, but I find your general disregard for evidence-based management quite worrying. You seem to generally be opposed to the ideas of statistics, evidence or studies, which is a bit concerning in a police officer.

It's also a bit weird that you claim the police are "incredibly badly run" when crime has been falling quite dramatically for the last 15 years.
 
Simon said:
Police are not the only agency, or indeed the only factor, in crime-prevention though, are they, as you have consistently argued...
Click to expand...

No no, not at all. But they are a major player, obviously. If the police are as "incredibly badly run" as pluk claims, it's a miracle that crime has fallen dramatically. Especially as inequality rose under Labour.
 
Sam said:
Simon said:
Police are not the only agency, or indeed the only factor, in crime-prevention though, are they, as you have consistently argued...
Click to expand...

No no, not at all. But they are a major player, obviously. If the police are as "incredibly badly run" as pluk claims, it's a miracle that crime has fallen dramatically. Especially as inequality rose under Labour.
Click to expand...

I think it's probably unfair to push this point, as pluk is undoubtedly highly constrained in what he can say to justify his position, or may feel unable to do so for fairly obvious reasons.

As an employee of an organisation you see a lot of things that are obviously not apparent outside. I may have a lot to say about my school's management, for instance, but to an outsider, the fact that the results are improving year-on-year makes any such position difficult to defend for me, though I may feel it acutely.
 
Sam said:
That's fair enough, but I find your general disregard for evidence-based management quite worrying. You seem to generally be opposed to the ideas of statistics, evidence or studies, which is a bit concerning in a police officer.

It's also a bit weird that you claim the police are "incredibly badly run" when crime has been falling quite dramatically for the last 15 years.
Click to expand...

It is not a disregard for that stuff, it is looking at what it is beyond the numbers. Not everything in the world is recordable, measurable and able to be put in a neat little box of better and worse. Preventative measures are very much one of those things. You show me a study and I'll show you a problem with it.

As for the crime stats, they are a record of recorded crime. But what crime is recorded? That is forever being tinkered with making the figures close to meaningless. I'm also largely refering to stuff that is happening right now. You've not seen those numbers yet......
 
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.
Click to expand...

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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
The issue that I can see with dealing with the social issues behind crime is one of funding. Spending money on dealing with those issues leaves less for policing the crime that is happening. I personally doubt that career criminals will be swayed by whatever programmes or measures are implemented. Meaning that the extra money would have to come from somewhere, but where?
 
When it comes to the funding question, that unlocks a whole other debate about the nature of public spending and where we seek our money. I would say we could increase our taxation on the rich, super rich, corporations and install a robin hood tax amongst other measures. That would cover a great deal of these kinds of costs if not all of them... and so on and so forth.... It's a question to raise Dar, but I don't really want to get into all of that because it could send this whole debate spiraling into an economics debate.

I think most career criminals would rather work within the confines of the law and have the opportunity to achieve a life with a good standard of living. This is speculation now but I don't think anyone would choose a life of crime (which is not in anyway easy) over a life where they have the opportunities to succeed.
 
True, I don't want to start debating economics! It opens far more questions than any of could hope to answer! :p

Thinking about what you've said, whilst it makes sense, I don't think it's a solution to all crime. Take drink driving as an example, money is spent on educating the masses that you shouldn't do it yet it's still a massive problem. Has that money been wasted? Should more be spent on it?
The same goes for using phones whilst driving and such like.

EDIT: Sorry, it's late and I struggle to put a post together at the best of times, if I haven't been clear please ask and I'll try to clarify! :)
 
A big curveball from me but I think that keeping this country economically stable is a good way for trying to reduce crime as if you have money from a job, why commit crimes?

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2
 
Re: Re: Crime and Punishment

Fredward said:
Not e everyone commits crimes because they have no money

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

I know that but it would help...

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2
 
Poison Tom 96 said:
A big curveball from me but I think that keeping this country economically stable is a good way for trying to reduce crime as if you have money from a job, why commit crimes?
Click to expand...

There's different types of "economically stable", it's not a black and white issue. You can have a stable economy where there is still a massive inequality between the rich and the poor, and that wouldn't reduce crime. You could also have a stable economy based on a much more equal society, with nobody in poverty, which would reduce crime.

Fredward is right, not everybody who commits crime does so because they have no money, but a significant portion do.
 
What kinds of crime would economic equality actually help reduce? And would it be a significant reduction?

Things like robbery and burglary and TWOC (nicking cars and such like, I just like the sound of TWOC! :p ) are the main areas that I can imagine being affected. I can't say I believe the same for other areas, like violent crimes.
 
The theory is that people that have nothing will steal to obtain.

I think things like antisocial behaviour, robbery and drug-related crime can be significantly reduced by combating poverty.

But even in the ultimate communist's fantasy where everyone is exactly as rich as everyone else (or money doesn't exist), the psychopaths and rapists would still have their urges.
 
BIG BUMP.

A few days ago, what with the shootings and everything in Conneticut, I couldn't help but wonder what you'd have personally done had the murderer not killed himself? Would this have been an extreme case where he should've received the death penalty or do you still believe that capital punishment is wrong at all levels?

I personally believe that the man was obviously very dangerous and as a consequence should've been put to rest before the lives of others were further endangered, had he not shot himself following the massacre.

Just wondered what TST thought.
 
I'd have locked him up in an institute for the criminally insane for the rest of his life.

What you're saying is that he should be murdered for killing a certain amount of people, so is there some sort of line? If you kill x amount you go to jail, but x+1 amount and you get the chair? Where do you put the line?

Killing is not the answer to killing.
 
America has a poor detection rate for psychopaths, combined with the paranoid 'right to own arms', this will continually spur disaster after disaster until they realise their stupidity - but I don't think they ever will. It has a poor learning curve despite example after example of gun-related atrocities. No president has had the balls to take on this issue, including Obama.

If he was sane, lifetime imprisonment. If he was insane, lifetime confinement to a high security mental hospital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top