Crime figures in the UK come from a poor thing called the BCS (based on random questionnaires asking if you have been victimised) and what cops decide to record. Last year the cop thing showed a serious decline in most categories whilst the BCS showed no real change in anything. It's all piss-poor research to be frank. Not sure on this stuff either Don. It's great if true. I'm never sure who the liberals are.
I would expect crime to drop if we could get genuine accountability and also if we really banged up repeat offenders. I suspect you may be better at this in the US than we are here, but honestly don't know - 'The Wire' could have been written here. Stuff like crack availability and such may have a lot to do with violent crime, and there are usually places like hospital emergency admissions where data could be gathered to get a more accurate picture than from self- interested senior cops and politicians. Not enough data to start on here, as usual (not your fault). We are talking here about releasing Jack the Ripper (Yorkshire variety) who is paranoid-schizoid. It's probably just spin - they do this with high profile types and don't release them - but behind this let out other violent and dangerous ones who were less celebrated. I knew one recent one personally. Laith Alani - former student (tried in vain to get him recognised for treatment). He killed two surgeons. They said they couldn't deport him a couple of months back because he wouldn't get meds in Iraq. Let him out here. He only hanged himself, but this may just have been luck. It's hard to get much done about dangerous loonies here. Our police force is huge now by long-term comparison, yet they don't seem able to respond well. We need a £250 million injection in child support services, yet were being told all was well not long ago before dead kids got embarrassing. Police blogs are full of complaints the figures are being screwed to ensure bonuses get paid to senior officers. The ways forward are pretty plain to me as a management researcher, but we do none of what is needed as far as I can see. My own street is pretty quiet at the moment because 3 or 4 houses of scrote have been cleaned up with the boot through the door. But this took 7 years and nearly killed us. The action could have been taken at the start - I could have done all of it myself as a beat cop with a bit of help in 6 months. Some networked crime (usually the most complex stuff) more or less disappears forever after a crack-down. Other stuff survives much the same with different perps. This latter stuff is the most difficult, for obvious reasons. There seems to be a change in the type of crime being committed too - burglaries are less common. Back before my has- been days, shop burglaries almost disappeared just after I joined. I'd love to claim responsibility, but sadly it was the rise of shop alarms. We got more burglary-dwellings. These are likely to be in decline now for reasons other than police swoops. I'd ask 'who knows' - but the real question is why no one is telling us. Cops are inclined to say the burglars are becoming 'borrowers from shops'. Given the police force is twice as big as it was when I was a cop and crime seems worse on figures and feeling, one has to ask for an explanation of this. I have seen none. On 1 Mar, 19:09, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Excerpt from Journal Ed. Report: > > Gigot: Finally this week, a crime theory demolished. My next guest > says that the economic recession has had at least one positive effect-- > to once and for all disprove the claim that unemployment begets crime. > As the economy began to shed jobs in 2008, criminologists predicted > that crime would shoot up. But the opposite has actually happened. > More than seven million lost jobs later, crime in the United States > has plummeted to its lowest level since the 1960s. > > Heather Mac Donald is a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute and a > contributing editor for the City Journal. > > Welcome. > > Mac Donald: Thank you, Paul. Glad to be here. > > Gigot: So some good news. Crime rate has continued to fall. What kind > of magnitudes are we talking about here? > > Mac Donald: Extraordinary magnitudes, Paul. In the first six months of > 2009, homicides dropped 10% nationally. > > Gigot: Wow. > > Mac Donald: Property crime, which is what you'd really expect to go up > if the root-causes theory of crime is true--that it's a response in > inequality and poverty--property crime went down over 6%, and violent > crimes went down almost 5%. > > Gigot: So we're back at levels not seen since the 1960s? That's > extraordinary. > > Mac Donald: It is extraordinary. And I credit the spread, ultimately, > of efficient policing and incarceration. But this is exactly the > opposite of what criminologists were hoping for--really gleefully > hoping for--that the crime drop began in the '90s nationally would > finally reverse itself and they could reclaim the dominance of the > root-causes theory of crime. > > Gigot: Well, tell us about that, the development of this root-causes > theory. That developed in the 1960s, and it's taken hold in widespread > elements within the academy. > > Mac Donald: The academy and the media, of course. The idea was that > crime really was a form of social criticism, that youth in inner > cities came to understand that the American Dream was a myth and a > cruel delusion. And when they found that the society was blocking > their advance, they would turn to crime as a form of social protest. > > Gigot: And that really became widespread not just--and did begin to > influence public policy. How so? > > Mac Donald: Extraordinarily, police chiefs bought the theory as well, > that they couldn't affect crime. The FBI, in its annual crime reports > through the late 1980s, said that homicide is a societal problem that > the police cannot respond to. The root causes theory of crime was the > big motivator for the war on poverty. It gave the government an excuse > to engage in massive redistribution of wealth and social programs, > because it could say, "Well, these have public-safety value. Since the > police cannot bring crime down, the way we have to bring crime down is > to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Otherwise they > will cause social havoc in the streets." > > Gigot: So this means that--I mean, whatever you think of welfare > programs, whatever you think of job-creation programs or food stamps, > whatever their utility as redistribution and income-maintenance > programs--what you're saying is that those have almost zero utility as > crime-fighting programs? > > Mac Donald: We should have known this after the 1960s, Paul. > > Gigot: Kind of makes sense. > > Mac Donald: Because the '60s saw a 43% increase in homicides > nationally, at the time when the economy was growing, and what was > really growing were government jobs. You had massive government jobs > programs in the inner city to try and stop crime, but in fact it had > no effect whatsoever. > > Gigot: So this dramatic change, what does this tell you about policing > policy going forward? what should we focus on? > > Mac Donald: It's a very optimistic story, Paul. It shows that the > government can create safety for its citizens by enforcing the rule of > law. But it's also a cautionary tale. If crime starts going up, it > will be because cities rashly cut their police force and start > emptying prisons. We've had a fivefold incarceration increase since > the-- > > Gigot: And that--you think incarceration--there's no question in your > mind that increased incarceration has made a big difference. > > Mac Donald: It incapacitates people. It gets people off the streets. > > Gigot: Off the streets. > > Mac Donald: We keep hearing a myth that the only people--that we're > sending more and more innocuous people to prison. That is not the > case. The profile of the people going to prison today is not radically > different than it was three decades ago. It's still a lifetime > achievement award for crime. > > Gigot: So who are the heroes in this story, if you will? I have in > mind the intellectual, but also political. I mean, who ended up--who > has changed the thinking here that has caused police forces to go back > to actual crime fighting and has--and have helped to blow up this > social theory of the last 40 years? > > Mac Donald: Well, without being too parochial, I would claim New York > City as the seedbed of this revolution. In the 1990s, William Bratton > was police commissioner under Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. > > Gigot: And then went on to be police chief in Los Angeles. > > Mac Donald: In Los Angeles, which has, like--L.A. has seen double- > digit crime drops since the recession. Both chiefs Bratton in L.A. and > New York City's police commissioner at the start of the recession-- > were the only chiefs in the country that said, We are going to keep > lowering crime because we know how to do it. They've been proven > absolutely right. Homicides in New York are down 19%; in L.A., 17%. > > Gigot: Wow. > > Mac Donald: We have started--in New York, that has spread across the > country--a policing revolution that uses crime data obsessively and > that holds local precinct commanders accountable. It's an > accountability revolution as well as an information revolution. > > Gigot: All right, Heather Mac Donald, thanks so much. Some good news > for a change. Thank you. > > Reminds me of one of my favorite liberal whines. "How can crime be > down when we have so MANY people in prison? It's a Paradox!" > > dj -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
