UK General election: Crime Figures

[chocolatepossum]

Seriously, nothing gets me more hot under the collar than what we have seen in recent days.

Two sets of statistics come out, one of them is widely recognised as unreliable (the police's recorded figures) due to changes in recording techniques, levels of reporting e.t.c. The other is a survey of a representative sample of 40,000 individuals from around the country(the British Crime Survey). The second report also has its problems (it doesn't survey children and it doesn't include murder or rape) but it picks up MORE crime than the first set and still the best barometer for crime because of the size of the survey and the consistency of methods used to collect data.

Now, BOTH of these surveys show crime to be falling considerably overall, and while the recorded figures show crime going up, the British Crime Survey shows them dropping.

I would understand if there were some debate about which statistics were more reliable e.t.c. but what angers me is the way so many people totally ignore the evidence that doesn't fit their theory that the country is going to the dogs. All the debate has centred around how labour has failed to combat rising violent crime with casual disregard for the figures showing the OPPOSITE!

I saw Question Time last night and William Hague said something like
"Well, you can say what you like about the rest of the figures but we know violent crime is rising"
Really, how is that exactly William? Anecdotal evidence in the Sun? The front page of the Daily Mail?
Speaking of the rag that is the Daily Mail, just take a look at what they've got on their front page today:

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk

How exactly are the statements " a young lady was stabbed in Surrey" and "Crime is falling" inconsistent, as they imply?

Am I alone in weeping tears of anger and frustration (OK maybe not literally) at the apparent blindness of all concerned? Even the government won't come out and state the bleeding obvious because they will look "weak". I think i need to go and lie down and rest my aching noggin but before I go I assure you I am not a Blairite running dog and will be voting for the Lib Dems.

p.s. rats, just realised I'm still at work: the lie down'll have to wait

:(

Edit: oopsy daisy, this should really be in Politics shouldn't it? I don't think I can move it though can I?

[richardm]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
I saw Question Time last night and William Hague said something like
"Well, you can say what you like about the rest of the figures but we know violent crime is rising"
Really, how is that exactly William? Anecdotal evidence in the Sun? The front page of the Daily Mail?


Yes, that's right. For many politicians it doesn't matter what the reality is so long as newspapers your core supporters read get the "right" message across.

You're probably right also that the government can't come out and say "it's not as bad as that" because they'll then be seen as complacent or soft. 'Cos everyone "knows" that the country is going to the dogs, can't walk the streets in safety, why, I was murdered three times last week and the police wouldn't come round etc, etc.

Having said that, I haven't looked at the data personally, but didn't the BBC said something along the lines of "Crime is down, but one of the surveys showed an increase in violent crime"? Or was that "an increase in violent crime as a proportion of all crime"? Or something else?


Edit: oopsy daisy, this should really be in Politics shouldn't it? I don't think I can move it though can I?

We mere mortals can't, but there are people here with Powers. Powers, I tell 'ee!

[richardm]

.. Violent crime appears to be increasing as a proportion (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4402299.stm) of crime, according to the BBC.

[Darat]

The wonderful Daily Mail, more logical contradictions then you can shake a stick at.

You'd almost think that the politicians were more interested about getting into or remaining in power then being truthful and wanting the best for their constituents.

As for crime, you do realise that most of it is caused by immigrants? Yesterday I was told by a UKIP party worker at my door that the police are not allowed to report crimes made by these "illegal immigrants" and most of them come from countries where there is no rule of law. I did ask where he got his facts from, but apparently this knowledge is being suppressed... asked how he knew about it... well he just did.

I suspect people’s views on crime are not formed by statistics but by the newspapers and other media stories, a bit like the “problem� of defending yourself in your own home, the “problem� with immigration, the “problem� with asylum seekers, the “problem� with the MMR vaccine and so on.

Indeed isn’t it ironic the fact that the Daily Mail and most other newspapers thought the attack on the woman warranted front-pages since that would seem to be an indication that crimes of such violence are still a very rare occurrence in this country?

[asthmatic camel]

Hang on a moment... behind all the number crunching, although there seems to have been some decrease in levels of crime, the present levels are still frighteningly high.

Statistics are little comfort to the millions of victims who suffer every year.

[Darat]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Hang on a moment... behind all the number crunching, although there seems to have been some decrease in levels of crime, the present levels are still frighteningly high.

Statistics are little comfort to the millions of victims who suffer every year.

Societies I believe have the level of crime they are willing to accept. Crime is committed by members of society after all criminals also have families and so on. I know a lot of people who don’t seem to relate what they do to creating a society that tolerates and to some extent encourages crime. For instance everyone who buys something that they know is “knocked off� is contributing to making this a society that tolerates crime.

[Reginald]

As I understand it, the bigger figures, the more spectacular ones that were sent out to various areas by the Tory party are based on the new method of recording. Basically if three people are attacked in one incident it is now recorded as three assaults. Before, when the recording was less detailed it may have simply been recorded as one "crime". It may even have been recorded as a lesser crime, maybe one of the less offensive sounding "drink" related crimes.

The fact that the figures are being recorded accurately I see as a credit to the government, at the end of the day in order to make any corrective measure count you must realistically know what needs fixing.

The discredit the conservatives have done themselves here is to try and compare these "enhanced" figures with the old style figures. Now it would be easy to say "But surely anyone with a modicum of common sense could see that the figures record different things", but I'm afraid that to me, most people don't care, they just take the stats as they come, without question.

That's why misrepresentation is such an easy game to play, same as in the asylum seeker figures and the outbreaks of MRSA. Bung out what figures you like, get your reaction then apologise very quietly at a later date that you were in "error" or there was a typo.

The damage is still done. As for the association of the recent case of the poor lady stabbed in the neck and these crime statistics, its quite shameful. Given that ALL parties use statistics to prove a point, the only possible target for this kind of disgrace can be any party who are defending the statistics as "improving"... the point of the thing I suppose.

For all complaints about records and statistics, I find it hard in my mind to imagine a government functioning without them.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Darat
Societies I believe have the level of crime they are willing to accept. Crime is committed by members of society after all criminals also have families and so on. I know a lot of people who don’t seem to relate what they do to creating a society that tolerates and to some extent encourages crime. For instance everyone who buys something that they know is “knocked off� is contributing to making this a society that tolerates crime.

I have to disagree with you there. The majority of crime is perpetrated by a minority of recidivists who are well known to the authorities, and arrested and released time after time.

I , personally, don't know anyone who considers current levels of crime acceptable. Do you?

[richardm]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Hang on a moment... behind all the number crunching, although there seems to have been some decrease in levels of crime, the present levels are still frighteningly high.

Statistics are little comfort to the millions of victims who suffer every year.

Some decrease? On the most pessimistic survey, the figures are at their lowest level in 20 years. Surely some credit should be due?

[Skeptic]

The problem, I am afraid, is that even the "lower" crime rate celbrated here are still very high. To say that "crime stopped increasing", after four decades of relentless increase in crime, is little comfort. What is needed is not a comparison of, say, the crime rate of 2000 to that of 2005, but a comparison of both to the crime rate in 1950 and an explanation as to why it grew expodentially since then. According to the home office's own report (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm53/5312/crimestats.pdf), crime rates (in general) had increase about tenfold in a generation and a half. See the graphs on p. 19 and 21 in particular.

That being the case, the outrage at those who distort the statistics to make crime look worse than it is is a bit like the outrage expressed by the letter writer complaining about the Monty Python sketch where sailors are engaged in cannibalism: how there Monty Python say there is cannibalism in the navy, when it is well-known they've got the problem relatively under control?

This seems to be the government's attitude in this case: how come people are still whining about crime, when the crime rate decreased and is now only 9.7 times as high, not 11.3 as high, as it was in the 1950s? Surely being burglared, on the average, only once a years instead of twice or three times is cause for celebration?

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by richardm
Some decrease? On the most pessimistic survey, the figures are at their lowest level in 20 years. Surely some credit should be due?

Did I say otherwise? My point was that despite a reduction, crime levels are still enormous.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Skeptic
This seems to be the government's attitude in this case: how come people are still whining about crime, when the crime rate decreased and is now only 9.7 times as high, not 11.3 as high, as it was in the 1950s? Surely being burglared, on the average, only once a years instead of twice or three times is cause for celebration?

It's not exactly a cause for dancing in the streets (someone would probably steal the PA), but this government has overseen a reversal of the previous trend that crime rates were going up. I can only see that as a good thing, and would like to see it continue.

Yes, the numbers are too high, but the current policy set appears to be working and should be retained and improved to keep those numbers coming down as much as possible. I have little faith that the Conservatives are capable of doing that, for all their tough-talking rhetoric. The last Tory government didn't do much good in that direction.

[Rolfe]

Statistics simply don't have the capacity to alter the entrenched beliefs of politicians. Or maybe of most people. The entrenched belief is that crime is rising, so we all know that it is, and damn the figures!

As a parallel, I recall an item on The Money Programme some years ago about the economics of Scottish independence. Part of the programme was a detailed presentation from an economist who had studied the subject in great detail, and performed some very sophisticated computer modelling, and concluded that on balance the economic argument was slightly weighted in favour of independence. Then the usual suspects came back on, and proceeded to talk about the huge economic disadvantages of independence, just as if the preceding illustration simply wasn't there. It's an article of faith that an independent Scotland would be economically disadvantaged, and the people who hold to it won't be swayed by actual facts.

It's an article of faith that crime is rising, and that, I'm afraid, is that.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
I have to disagree with you there. The majority of crime is perpetrated by a minority of recidivists who are well known to the authorities, and arrested and released time after time.


If these people are known and are allowed to continue to commit the crimes then I'd say that society is allowing it.


Originally posted by asthmatic camel

I , personally, don't know anyone who considers current levels of crime acceptable. Do you?

Well I actually do, as far as I can tell we don’t have terrible problems with crime at the moment. Yes I'd like to see less, but that I believe is unreasonable to expect crime to ever disappear.

Certainly I don’t buy into the idea that crime is significantly (overall) worse then it was say 25 years ago. (Not to say that more crime isn’t reported, and there is a much higher perception of crime.)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The problem, I am afraid, is that even the "lower" crime rate celbrated here are still very high. To say that "crime stopped increasing", after four decades of relentless increase in crime, is little comfort. What is needed is not a comparison of, say, the crime rate of 2000 to that of 2005, but a comparison of both to the crime rate in 1950 and an explanation as to why it grew expodentially since then. According to the home office's own report (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm53/5312/crimestats.pdf), crime rates (in general) had increase about tenfold in a generation and a half. See the graphs on p. 19 and 21 in particular.

That being the case, the outrage at those who distort the statistics to make crime look worse than it is is a bit like the outrage expressed by the letter writer complaining about the Monty Python sketch where sailors are engaged in cannibalism: how there Monty Python say there is cannibalism in the navy, when it is well-known they've got the problem relatively under control?

This seems to be the government's attitude in this case: how come people are still whining about crime, when the crime rate decreased and is now only 9.7 times as high, not 11.3 as high, as it was in the 1950s? Surely being burglared, on the average, only once a years instead of twice or three times is cause for celebration?

But looking at those graphs it appears we are again talking about reported crime figures. I would expect because of other changes in society that these would have seen a terrific increase in the last 50 years even if not one additional crime had actually been committed. (Types of crimes which are now reported and recorded, changes in society that mean crimes that wouldn’t have been reported at one time now are and so on.)

[Skeptic]

But looking at those graphs it appears we are again talking about reported crime figures. I would expect because of other changes in society that these would have seen a terrific increase in the last 50 years even if not one additional crime had actually been committed.

I never understood how this argument is supposed to work. Granted, some types of crime--especially rape and domestic violence--were underreported in the past. But burglaries? Murder? Assault?

What reason--except for the very tenfold increase they attempt to "explain"--is there to suppose that such crimes were ever underreported, let alone by such a huge margin?

[richardm]

Originally posted by Skeptic
But burglaries? Murder? Assault?

What reason--except for the very tenfold increase they attempt to "explain"--is there to suppose that such crimes were ever underreported, let alone by such a huge margin?

Well, for assault it's quite easy. Fights after the pub on a Friday night would go unreported. Now with CCTV they get acted upon and arrests are made. Furthermore, with the new rules they're not reported as "An incident", but each participant is listed separately. Previously this wouldn't be done unless people were charged.

[Skeptic]

Well, for assault it's quite easy. Fights after the pub on a Friday night would go unreported.

How many assaults, of the total number of assaults allegedly "underreported" in the 1950s, were "Friday night fights in the pub"? I find it hard to believe that, in the 50s, there were ten times as many unreported pub fights as all other assaults put together, which is about the ratio you would need. Surely somebody would have noticed this before--tourists at the time, perhaps?

Also, are friday nights fights in the pubs today prosecuted with such vigilance? If anything, it seems that today such fights are considered to be normal behavior, and the police are more likely than in the past to ignore it as not worth their time.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Darat
If these people are known and are allowed to continue to commit the crimes then I'd say that society is allowing it.




Well I actually do, as far as I can tell we don’t have terrible problems with crime at the moment. Yes I'd like to see less, but that I believe is unreasonable to expect crime to ever disappear.

Certainly I don’t buy into the idea that crime is significantly (overall) worse then it was say 25 years ago. (Not to say that more crime isn’t reported, and there is a much higher perception of crime.)

Darat, you've given some idea of the area in which you live over time. I can assure you that, were you to live where I do, your perception of crime would be very different.

Since Labour came to power, our vehicles have been broken into/stolen/written off over 20 times. The police caught three of the criminals, all of whom were well known to them as repeat offenders. How did they catch them? One was caught because I physically apprehended him. Another was caught because my neighbour spotted him and phoned the police. The third was caught because he was too junked-up to turn the headlights on when he stole my car.

All three are multiple offenders well known to the police. All three have been to prison more than once. All three have cost us thousands of pounds which we are unable to recover.

To be honest, I find your claim that we have the level of crime that we deserve quite offensive.

[Darat]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Darat, you've given some idea of the area in which you live over time. I can assure you that, were you to live where I do, your perception of crime would be very different.


Granted over the last 2 years I've lived in a very "nice" area in the South East, before that I however lived in Battersea in London (on one of the council estates albeit in a private flat in a lo-rise), previous to that I lived in North Manchester in a high-rise, I even lived for a time in Moss Side in one of the notorious blocks now long "redeveloped" i.e. demolished. So my experience is not limited to just a nice area.

Originally posted by asthmatic camel

Since Labour came to power, our vehicles have been broken into/stolen/written off over 20 times.

...snip...



But you aren’t saying that is related to Labour and their policies are you? In many ways I believe the government in power has remarkable few tools to alter such things as crime levels.



Originally posted by asthmatic camel

...snip...

To be honest, I find your claim that we have the level of crime that
we deserve quite offensive.

Why offensive? I've never said you deserve to be the victim of a crime? Are you saying that as I believe Thatcher once remarkable announced "there is no such thing as society"? If you aren’t then surely we do have the level of crime we are willing to tolerate? I can’t see how we can conclude anything else?

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Darat
Granted over the last 2 years I've lived in a very "nice" area in the South East, before that I however lived in Battersea in London (on one of the council estates albeit in a private flat in a lo-rise), previous to that I lived in North Manchester in a high-rise, I even lived for a time in Moss Side in one of the notorious blocks now long "redeveloped" i.e. demolished. So my experience is not limited to just a nice area.



But you aren’t saying that is related to Labour and their policies are you? In many ways I believe the government in power has remarkable few tools to alter such things as crime levels.





Why offensive? I've never said you deserve to be the victim of a crime? Are you saying that as I believe Thatcher once remarkable announced "there is no such thing as society"? If you aren’t then surely we do have the level of crime we are willing to tolerate? I can’t see how we can conclude anything else?

I don't believe that anyone deserves to be a victim of crime. I don't believe that Margaret Thatcher was correct when she said " there is no such thing as society."

I do believe that the UK has horrific levels of crime which no party is willing to address.

[Darat]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel

...snip...

I do believe that the UK has horrific levels of crime which no party is willing to address.

Why do you think none of the political parties are "willing to address" the matter? I would say it is because there is not the “will� in society to tackle the problem because the level of crime is still at a “tolerable� level.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Darat
Why do you think none of the political parties are "willing to address" the matter? I would say it is because there is not the “will� in society to tackle the problem because the level of crime is still at a “tolerable� level.

...with "tolerable level of crime" defined ever upwards, in the same time that "acceptable level of education" is defined ever downwards...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
...with "tolerable level of crime" defined ever upwards, in the same time that "acceptable level of education" is defined ever downwards...

Defined by who?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
I saw Question Time last night and William Hague said something like "Well, you can say what you like about the rest of the figures but we know violent crime is rising"
Really, how is that exactly William? Anecdotal evidence in the Sun? The front page of the Daily Mail?


There was just a news release on 4/21/05 that said the mayor of DC disputes the US Census Bureau's 2005-2030 population projections. DC has it going up, the Bureau has it going down.

"Census demographers conceded that their analysis, based on data from 2001 and earlier, could have missed a dramatic reversal in migration trends away from the nation's capital. But Gregory Spencer, chief of the Census Bureau's population projections branch, noted that the bureau, unlike the mayor, uses strict mathematical models that leave no room for wishful thinking."

(source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8013-2005Apr21.html)

[Robin]

I had a similar feeling about the recent Australian election where the Government successfully campaigned for re-election partly on the basis of on some highly inaccurate interest rate statistics.

But then I thought that if the opposition cannot counter the Government's obvious inaccuracy then how competent are they?

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Darat
Why do you think none of the political parties are "willing to address" the matter? I would say it is because there is not the “will� in society to tackle the problem because the level of crime is still at a “tolerable� level.

Crime and punishment. Crime and rehabilitation. Take your pick, Darat. I'd prefer a "zero tolerance" approach which seems to have been effective in New York.

Locally, a certain Mr. Peter A. Berry, a reknowned drug addict and criminal, was amongst the villains caught damaging one of our vehicles. This guy is a one man crime zone who has been convicted over and over again. When I called the police, there wasn't much doubt about his identity and he was quickly arrested by officers who knew where to find him.

So, yet another court case. Yet another small fine. Yet another bastard allowed out to harass his neighbours.

"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime."

My arse.

[chocolatepossum]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[
I never understood how this argument is supposed to work. Granted, some types of crime--especially rape and domestic violence--were underreported in the past. But burglaries? Murder? Assault?

What reason--except for the very tenfold increase they attempt to "explain"--is there to suppose that such crimes were ever underreported, let alone by such a huge margin? [/B]


I don't think you should discount the impact of the underreporting of domestic violence on crime figures.

Murder probably wasn't underreported, but that constitutes a miniscule percentage of overall crime.

Assault I think was very likely underreported compared to today, just listening to some of my Dad's stories about growing up on a council estate in the 50s it has become clear to me that what would have been dismissed as horsing around or, at worst, bullying in the 50s is now "street crime". The fact that young people have more valuable portable goods these days can also go some way toward explaining the rise in this sort of crime. Someone who would have beaten you up for your lunch money in the 50s is now stealing high-tech mobile phones.

Ditto burglary, more compact electrical goods in households = more profit from crime.

I read a Polly Toynbee article about this the other day;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1466341,00.html

and there was a good bit in it about how attitudes to crime have changed since the 30s:

"Here is one example. "Before the war" is often cited as the current golden age when people may have been poor but they didn't thieve and the public was orderly. Sir Robert Mark, Met commissioner and first media superstar cop, in his 1978 autobiography inadvertently reveals another picture of the rough and tumble of street life for a Manchester beat constable in the late 1930s.

He writes cheerily of "the odd brawl and punch-up" when patrolling the city centre at weekends in strength "because drunks frequently started fights and a good time was had by all". Jovially he recounts a "funny" story: "One Friday night an enormous navvy pushed the head of a constable through a shop window and started quite a battle in which uniformed and plain clothes men cheerfully joined in ... it grew to quite serious proportions, stopping the traffic ... the crowd was jeering and becoming unpleasantly restive." So what did he do? He took out his illegal rubber truncheon and gave the offender "a hefty whack on the shin", which broke his leg.

In court the prisoner with his leg in plaster was fined "the customary 10 shillings" for this routine Saturday night fight........

His nostalgia is for no-nonsense, no-bureaucracy policing, but what he reveals in passing is a world where drunken riot was frequent, and sensibility about what crime is serious was very different. If a villain put a policeman's head through a window now it would be a major crime with a long sentence, not a bit of a laugh and a small fine. People hitting each other was more frequent and more acceptable than now. Yet 48% of "violent" crime reported in yesterday's figures caused no injury whatsoever. "


Basically, what I'm saying is that all this along with all the changes in the way crime is recorded since the 50s can go some way to explaining why crime is "10 times higher" than in the 50s. However, even if all of what I've just said is rubbish, the fact is that crime is now falling. Wouldn't that suggest to you that we are doing something right?

[chocolatepossum]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by asthmatic camel
[B]Crime and punishment. Crime and rehabilitation. Take your pick, Darat. I'd prefer a "zero tolerance" approach which seems to have been effective in New York.


Given that something like 80% of prisoners re offend after release from prison, don't you think we should make every attempt to reform criminals without sending them to prison?

It seems to me that this (apart from locking them up permanently or executing them) would be the best way to reduce crime. Of course this depends on the criminal and the seriousness of the offence.


EDIT: Reoffending actually only 58% within 2 years of release and 72% for 18-20 year olds.

[Skeptic]

I don't think you should discount the impact of the underreporting of domestic violence on crime figures.

I don't think I did. I specifically mentioned them. But see below.

Murder probably wasn't underreported, but that constitutes a miniscule percentage of overall crime.

But it, too, had increased tenfold, while remaining at about the same percentage of total reported crime. According to the "underreported" hypothesis for other crimes, this means that from 1950 to 2000, actual crime remained at comparable levels (due to underreporting) EXCEPT for murder, which, for some reason, is now ten times more common. Surely this doesn't make sense?

Assault I think was very likely underreported compared to today, just listening to some of my Dad's stories about growing up on a council estate in the 50s it has become clear to me that what would have been dismissed as horsing around or, at worst, bullying in the 50s is now "street crime".

Again, I am not denying this. But to quote Basil Faulty: "what, ALL of it?"

Compare this to a different hypothesis: it is black people who cause crime. More black people in England means more crime and they explain the crime wave of the 80s and 90s.

The problem with this hypothesis--apart from its racism--is that when you look at the numbers, it makes no sense. Granted, black immigrants to Britian have, for a variety of reasons, a higher crime rate than whites. But for this to explain the rise in crime, just about every young black male would have to be a full-time car-thief-cum-burglar wife-beating murderer: a ludicrous proposition, no matter what you think about black people. It just defies common sense.

Same here. Granted, underreporting could explain SOME of the rise in crime. If crime rose by 30% or 50% or even doubled, that might still make sense. But as things are--with reported crime, all around, about ten times as high as before--we are supposed to believe two ludicrously absurd propostions, namely:

1). In the past, there was a huge amount--about ten times as large as the reported amount--of burglaries, assaults, car theft, robberies, etc., etc., which was just not reported to the police.

2). The very same underclass, whose members then as now include both most criminals and most victims, had become incredibly more cooperative and appreciative of the police force and of government officials, so that they now scupolously bring all those "invisible" crimes to the attention of the authorities.

Does this make any sense to you? Stating these two claims is enough to falsify them, I think.

However, even if all of what I've just said is rubbish, the fact is that crime is now falling. Wouldn't that suggest to you that we are doing something right?

Not at all. There is a term in stock trading: "dead cat bounce". The idea is that if a company turns out to suck badly, and its stock falls 95%, it is likely to rise a little bit--say, to 7% of its previous value--from force of intertia.

Same here. After crime rose ten-fold in a generation in a half, the fact that it does not continue its meteoric climb forever but settled at an "acceptable" level of only 8.5 to 9 times the previous crime rate (as opposed to 10 or 11 times the previous rate at the very height of the crime wave) could very well be a natural phenomena, having nothing to do with anything doing anything "right".

If anything, it is far more likely that this phenomena is due to underreporting than the "missing" hundreds of thousands of assaults and robberies in 1950: after twenty years of consistent increase in crime with the obvious indifference or at least ineffectiveness of the police, I would not be at all surprised if a growing number of the people decided that, obviously, there really is no point in reporting the burglary or theft or robbery.

Why bother reporting to a police force that is likely to do nothing more than waste their time, and to lecture them on installing an alarm system or not going out alone after dark?

[chocolatepossum]

I see your point about the amount of underreporting of crime needed to explain away a ten-fold increase being extremely high, but given quite how much crime still goes unreported I'm not sure this is that unlikely. However, I don't claim to be sure of the truth as regards this issue; I just think that recorded police figures can be a VERY unreliable source of information when you are comparing figures from today with those from the 50s.

As regards your idea that people could be reporting less crime now, the BCS was created for the very purpose of picking up crime that went unreported and has been showing a decrease in crime since the mid 90s (I think) and a decrease in violent crime.

Do you think that what is needed to lower crime to 1950s levels is a return to a 1950s criminal justice system? If so, what does that mean specifically?

[asthmatic camel]

EDIT: Reoffending actually only 58% within 2 years of release and 72% for 18-20 year olds. [/B]

Bear in mind that this is for reoffenders who are actually caught

Anyway, the revised figures are hardly inspiring.

I remain astonished that anyone can talk about "acceptable" or "tolerable" levels of crime. Crime isn't acceptable or tolerable, that's why it's called crime and is punishable!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


I remain astonished that anyone can talk about "acceptable" or "tolerable" levels of crime. Crime isn't acceptable or tolerable, that's why it's called crime and is punishable!

I agree with you here Camel. There is no such thing as an acceptable crime level.

Repeat offending is the major problem and the solution is decent sentences. The bloke Tony Martin shot had a string of convictions longer than my arm. Im not in favour of "three strikes and you're out" but repeat offending deserves dramatically increased sentencing.

[Darat]

I have to disagree with you both, there is in society as a whole an acceptance for some level of crime. Whether that is "speed cameras shouldn't be allowed" or "I got this from a bloke in a pub" etc.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Darat
I have to disagree with you both, there is in society as a whole an acceptance for some level of crime. Whether that is "speed cameras shouldn't be allowed" or "I got this from a bloke in a pub" etc.

I think you confuse an acceptable type of crime with overall crime levels.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I think you confuse an acceptable type of crime with overall crime levels.

Do the people who compile the statistics also confuse the two? Or do they regard crime to be crime full stop, and report the numbers accordingly?

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Darat
I have to disagree with you both, there is in society as a whole an acceptance for some level of crime. Whether that is "speed cameras shouldn't be allowed" or "I got this from a bloke in a pub" etc.

I have to disagree with you again. There is acceptance for some level of crime in certain parts of society as a whole. As a rule, junkies think that injecting illegal drugs is acceptable, for example.

People like to grouse about speed cameras and parking fines but, if they hold a valid drivers license, they should know perfectly well what the laws are and can't really complain if they break them. I rarely drive, and, speaking as a cyclist, have no tolerance for illegal parking, speeding, and poor driving in general; they put my life at risk.

[chocolatepossum]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Murder probably wasn't underreported, but that constitutes a miniscule percentage of overall crime.

But it, too, had increased tenfold, while remaining at about the same percentage of total reported crime. According to the "underreported" hypothesis for other crimes, this means that from 1950 to 2000, actual crime remained at comparable levels (due to underreporting) EXCEPT for murder, which, for some reason, is now ten times more common. Surely this doesn't make sense?

[ [/B]

Actually I think murder figures have roughly doubled since the 50s, I assume that means murders per capita have less than doubled. So that's OK then! ;)

[richardm]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
I have to disagree with you again. There is acceptance for some level of crime in certain parts of society as a whole. As a rule, junkies think that injecting illegal drugs is acceptable, for example.

And some people like impersonating a customs officer (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870387582), but it's still illegal.

;)

[Darat]

Thanks Richard.

AC - that's what I mean by society “accepting� and tolerating some level of crime. I personally find what you did amusing and you shouldn’t be treated as a criminal for what you did, but if society had a rigid zero tolerance approach you'd be liable for prosecution.

I’m not saying what you’ve experienced over the last few years is OK, or that it represents what society should accept, however it is my contention that the “problem� of crime is not solved by governments but by society as a whole. (Governments form part of society of course but they don’t create the society, governments in free countries are an expression of that countries society.)

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by richardm
And some people like impersonating a customs officer (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870387582), but it's still illegal.

;)

Heh, good spot. Mea culpa. It was f8ckin funny though. :D
I don't really know how the C&E organise raids but, I'm fairly sure that they don't call their victims for an interview a day in advance on April 1st. Apparently, this guy was a great lover of Jeremy Beadle and Candid Camera type stunts. He wasn't too keen when it happened to him.:D