In UK they're going to experiment with a radical new crime control technique: station cops in areas where a large number of crimes occur.
I wonder if they'll figure out the high incarceration=low crime correlation next?
Nah.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
The still haven't figured out the "lots of dead criminals at the hands of honest citizen greatly reduces crime rate" concept yet
Um, I think I know why they haven't "figured out" either of those two things, Bob and Bob. Care to guess? Put on your thinking caps, now.
@wally: go ahead and enlighten us, Wally. No telling which way you're going to go with this.
It's pretty simple, Bob. The US has the highest incarceration rate of any country by far. Does it therefore have the lowest crime rate? Second lowest? Third lowest? I'll bet you could look it up for yourself (Wikipedia has some pretty charts.) As for Bob S's fine concept, who is this honest citizen you single out for praise? I'm thinking Superman.
@wally: Wally, I'm already aware that high incarceration rates don't tie directly to low crime rates, and I'm also aware that cultural and demographic differences in countries has much to do with this. The point I was trying to make, which apparently I failed to make well enough, was that UK currently is in a cycle of criminal-coddling which is causing the crime stats to be higher than necessary, to the point that the public is fed up with the Labour Party on this very basic issue and will likely throw them out at the next election.
Well, where I come from, if you're already aware that a statement is false, you don't make it. If there is indeed no such correlation, then it would be a mistake to base policy on the notion that there is.
@wally: apparently I'm unable to make my point in a way that you're prepared to understand it. Let me try it this way:
Suppose you have 100 people in a village, and 10 of them are criminals, or people prone to committing crimes. Those ten criminals, then, represent your crime statistic. If all of them are left to commit crimes, then you have a 100% crime rate, since you have determined that 10% of the population will commit crimes.
Then, suppose you jail 5 of those criminals. During the period that those five are in jail, your crime rate will have been reduced by 50%, will it not? If you jail all 10 of the criminals, then hooray, you've solved the crime problem, there is no crime, you've reduced the crime rate 100%!
This doesn't take into account what happens when the criminals are released, nor does it take into account increases in population. In a country of millions of people, each individual criminal that is jailed reduces the crime rate by a miniscule percentage; but, taken in aggregate, the more criminals that are locked up, the lower the crime rate will be, unless you are trying to tell me that, by the laws of supply and demand, that otherwise honest citizens will turn to crime to make up the lack of active criminals?
Wow, Robert. I'll freely admit to being unable to understand your reasoning. Who in the world measures crime rates by identifying criminals and those "prone" to commit crimes (!!) and calculating what percentage of them you can lock up? No governmental entity that I know of.
And how does your theory account for the incarceration to crime ratio in the U.S.?
Finally, your notion that a "criminal" is some identifiable species borders on the reprehensible, to my liberal eyes. Is someone who cheats on their income tax a criminal? Someone who breaks the speed limit? Would you have been able to identify a Catholic priest as a child molester? Life just isn't as simple as conservatives fervently wish it was.
@wally: this is at the point where it seems you're just baiting me to get a reaction, out of boredom or cupidity. I don't theorize about criminals as a separate species, nor was I referring to tax cheats, child molesters or violators of traffic laws. I'm sure you already know that, though.
Not that I'm above cupidity, Robert, but your formula for crime rates seems to require the ability to identify criminals and those prone to criminal activity. I was using hyperbolic examples to show how difficult such an undertaking would be. And yes, reprehensible, if you're suggesting "jailing" those "prone to committing crimes," the assumption of your words being that they haven't actually committed one. Please let me know how I am misinterpreting your thoughts here.
Also, I'd appreciate a response to my first two paragraphs, since they're more relevant to your original post and comments.
@wally: the original story that I based my post on concerned street crimes, such as muggings, assaults, robberies, rapes and murders. It didn't concern white-collar crimes or traffic crimes.
When I used the words "prone to" in an earlier reply (prone: having a natural inclination or tendency to something; disposed; liable: to be prone to anger.) it did not mean that I advocate jailing people simply for intent. If you took that to be my meaning, I apologize for the clumsy choice of words.
Incarceration rates in the US reflect all crimes, not just violent street crimes, which are the crimes that the article was concerned about and which I based my post on. Therefore for you to say that US incarceration rates disprove my contention that jailing robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers and other violent offenders will reduce such crimes is disingenuous.
The article that I based my post on concerned street crime, as already mentioned. The reason that street crime is a problem in UK is because many violent street criminals are left on the streets to commit crime after crime, or are given ASBO's (Anti-Social Behavior Orders) instead of taking them off the street. The UK government apparently believes that jail is futile, since there seems to be an endless supply of violent street criminals in UK and that it would be impossible to jail them all.
And to counter the argument that you will surely offer, Wally, let me say that I understand that street crime can be tackled in more ways than simply jail: changing the hours in which people can purchase alcohol (it was previously similar to the US, now you can buy alcohol around the clock), more cops on the streets instead of in offices filling out forms, etc. Jail must be available for those criminals who will not change their behavior, however.
Well now, Robert old bean, I revisited the original article and find no mention of "violent street crime." In fact, they seem to be describing drug trafficking areas more than anything. I can't imagine this article being about placing a bobby on a corner where rapes continually happen, can you? And I think even you would be reluctant to contend that the incarceration of drug users and dealers in the US has resulted in a lower rate of such activities.
But getting back to the original point: if we both agree that there is not a high incarceration/low crime rate correlation for all crimes in the US, then wouldn't the onus be on you to show some proof that the statistics for a particular category of crime goes against this trend? You seem to think the Brits are dolts for not having worked out your elegant formula for themselves, but in lieu of actual facts, I'd be slow to come around too.
From the Drawn Cutlass Philosophy: "...don't believe without evidence"
@wally: I have seen no evidence that a jailed criminal contributes to the crime rate. If you have such evidence, by all means present it.
That's your response? Really? I'm disappointed.
Post a Comment