Lazs - London/New York crime trends - interesting article

[beet1e]

Well, well. Found this article today. A bit of a wall-o-text, but quite readable. It bears out everything I've been saying about our respective crime rates, and the decrease in American crime rates.

If you manage to read all this, you will notice that there isn't a single mention of the G-word when accounting for America's decrease in crime.

Geez, I'm fed up with being right.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/09/ntec109.xml

First wall in two part wall-o-text

Splashed across many of last week's newspapers was the headline: "UK police are the worst in the developed world". That claim will have confirmed what a lot of people in the UK already believe.

It was prompted by a book by Norman Dennis and George Erdos that compared the British police's performance in dealing with rising crime rates with the forces in America, France and Germany. The British police came out of the comparison very badly.

"In fact, I don't think our police force is among the world's worst," explained Mr Dennis, who works for the think-tank Civitas and for the University of Newcastle. "But I do think that it is demonstrably true that our police force has failed, and failed miserably, to respond effectively to rising crime rates.

"The British police seem to me to have given up altogether on low-level crime – and the result of their decision to concentrate only on solving serious crimes has not been that those crimes have diminished. On the contrary, offences involving violence against the person have rocketed. Our cops have mistakenly put all their efforts into detecting crime once it has happened, rather than into trying to prevent it from happening in the first place."

Part of the problem, Mr Dennis maintains, is that the Home Office, along with a lot of academic criminologists, insist on denying the most fundamental fact about crime in Britain: that it has been, and is, increasing.

"That denial is just silly," he says. "Fifty years ago, there weren't 400 street robberies in the whole of Britain. In 2001, there wasn't a single month in the borough of Lambeth – that is just one London borough – in which there were fewer than 400 street robberies. Crimes against the person involving violence go up every year. There is no doubt about that at all.

"But if you insist – as the Home Office claimed, absurdly, in response to our book – that `the latest figures show that the risk of being a victim is at its lowest since records began', then of course you find it difficult to persuade the police to tackle the problem," Mr Dennis says. "Obviously, you can't respond to a problem if you don't think it exists."

There is also the conviction, deeply ingrained in the Home Office, large portions of the judiciary and even much of the police hierarchy, that, even if some crimes are on the increase, it's not their fault: they should not be blamed because there is nothing anyone can do about the "vast, complex sociological patterns" that cause increases in crime.

They argue that we simply have to get used to higher crime rates and deal with them by such steps as improving the security in our houses and cars – measures which, famously, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, advised Britons to take on the grounds that they were the best, if not the only, way to reduce crime.

"This depressed and depressing defeatism is rubbish," responds Mr Dennis. "And to see it is rubbish, you only need to compare London with New York."

The two metropolitan areas have comparable populations of just over seven million. In 1991, while London's crime rate was, by the standards of big international cities, relatively low, New York had the reputation of being the crime capital of the world.

There were more than 2,300 murders a year in New York in 1991 and well over 100,000 street robberies. London, by comparison, had 181 murders and 22,000 street robberies in that year.

Last year, there were 538 homicides in New York. That means the murder rate has decreased by a factor of five over the past 13 years. London's murder rate has not reduced at all over the same period: there were 186 homicides in the capital last year.

More astonishing still is the comparison in the statistics for street robberies. In 2003, the last complete year for which records are available, there were just 24,334 street robberies in New York – while in London, 38,490 people were robbed in the street.

It takes some time for the significance of that statistic to sink in. New York, from having had a rate of street robbery five times that of London a decade ago, now has 14,000 fewer street robberies every year than our capital.

That statistic is not the result of manipulating figures. It is simply proof that those who insist that "nothing can be done about crime" are wrong: crime can be dramatically reduced – it can be, because in New York it clearly has been.

How have the Americans done it? What is being done in New York that is not being done in London? Police numbers are an important part of the solution. New York has consistently increased its police head count so that it now has more than 40,000 uniformed officers patrolling the city. With only 30,000 officers available, London has 10,000 fewer active policemen than New York.

More revealing still is the ratio of crimes to police officers in the two cities. In New York, there is one police officer for every seven recorded crimes. In London, each officer has to deal with 41 recorded crimes, which might help to explain why London's police seem so uninterested in responding to calls from homeowners about burglaries or thefts.

Police numbers, however, would not count for much if police officers were not used effectively. "Aggressive policing is the key," says Mr Dennis. "In New York, the police have taken back the streets. They have refused to tolerate low-level crime, from prostitutes or drug dealers soliciting customers, graffiti artists or abusive behaviour. They have even taken steps such as cordoning off whole apartment buildings and refusing entry to anyone who is not a resident or does not have authority from the NYPD. They have targeted the high-crime areas and the individuals and gangs who are responsible for dozens of offences, and arrested them."

Dr Eli Silverman, a professor of police studies who teaches New York police officers at the John Jay College for Criminal Justice, agrees that it is the tactics of the New York police that have been critically important: "We've taken back territory," he insists, "we've gone into the gang-controlled areas and cleaned them up, stopping gangs from being able to operate. It's a strategy of crime prevention, as opposed to one of waiting for crime to happen and then trying to clear it up afterwards."

Dr Silverman has tried to persuade the British police to adopt New York's methods. He even held meetings with David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary. But he says he discovered that "the traditional British approach considers New York's techniques too in-your-face, too aggressive in managerial style. I told them that it works and that is the difference between our police and yours. But the British police are all planning and no doing: they get bogged down in procedures. What they need is ruthless command and accountability all down the line. They haven't got it."

Police numbers and techniques are, of course, only one part of creating a comprehensive strategy that has a realistic chance of reducing crime. The police themselves argue, with some justice, that what happens to criminals after the police arrest them is an even more important element.

In London, the courts are extremely reluctant to sentence burglars and street robbers to prison. Many street robbers will commit dozens, if not scores, of offences before finally standing before a judge who decides on a custodial sentence. Usually, the sentence will be a few months at most. The average sentence for those convicted of burglary or robbery with violence is, in London (as in Britain as a whole), less than four years.

In New York, the same offence receives double that tariff: the average sentence for robbery or burglary with violence in New York is more than eight years. And whereas offenders in London are routinely let out after having served half their sentence, and are often subject to only the lightest supervision from parole officers, in New York parole has to be earned – and the smallest infraction of its conditions can lead to the offender being sent back to prison to serve double his original sentence.

New York is not the only American city to have seen spectacular falls in crime. Crime of almost all varieties has tumbled across America over the past decade. The falling crime rate has coincided with decisions by the courts to increase prison sentences and by central government to embark on a colossal prison-building programme to house the more than two million Americans who are now serving time in jail.

One example of the new-found severity of America's penal code is California's "three strikes and you're out" law. Introduced after a referendum on the issue in 1994, the law mandates that any individual convicted for a third time of a serious offence – which in California can include stealing from a shop or a car – will be sentenced to life imprisonment.

 

[beet1e]

Second wall in two part wall-o-text

California's crime rate is now a third of what it was a decade ago. In November last year, Californians were invited to repeal their "three strikes" law, which some claimed has led to too many people serving life sentences without parole for insignificant crimes. The voters of Californians refused the invitation: the law was supported by a large margin in a popular referendum.

Voters in Britain are not given the opportunity to express their preferences on a proposition such as California's "three strikes" law. When Michael Howard was Home Secretary, he attempted to introduce a mandatory sentence of three years for a third offence of domestic burglary. Tony Blair, then leader of the opposition, with help from the Law Lords, managed to insert a clause into the Crime Sentencing Act of 1997 that allowed judges not to impose the mandatory sentence if they did not think it appropriate.

The result has been that in the seven years since the Act came into force, fewer than 15 of the hundreds convicted of burglary for a third time have been given the mandatory three-year sentence. The great majority have been allowed "back into the community" – which is one reason why domestic burglary in Britain has stayed roughly constant, as opposed to falling more by than a third, which is what has happened in the US.

The lesson from America appears to be straightforward: if Britain is to tackle rising crime, police numbers will have to increase, their tactics will have to change, we will have to build more prisons, and the judges will have to sentence more criminals to longer spells inside them.

There is, however, absolutely no indication that the Government will even attempt to achieve any of those goals. Do not expect rates of street robbery in London, therefore, to drop by a factor of five, as they have done in New York.

[Gonzo]

Wait, Beet, what exactly have you proven, that more guns doesn't decrease crime. Even if you can make that conclusion by some wacked-out "link of omission" argument which is illegitimate in the first place, the argument your trying to make with the article is entirely defensive.

You fail to get any offense saying that more guns=more crime, which would be the thing you would need. If by some stupid logic, you gain that more guns does not mean more crime without showing that more guns equals more crime, then guns are fine, and apparantly cause no harm. The article, at that point, does you no good whatsoever.

What is true, is the fact that you've brought an article that entirely supports my point. Lets go back a bit on the butter knife thread...

Originally posted by Gonzo
Your making a distingction that's entirely wrong. Guns aren't our problem, it's our society (which is  worse, by the way).

At least we don't have nutsos going on butter-knife drive-by rampages...

And now, to the article...

there is nothing anyone can do about the "vast, complex sociological patterns" that cause increases in crime.

[Sox62]

Last year,Ohio passed a concealed carry bill.

Coincidentally,homicides dropped 20% in Columbus in 2004.

The Plain Dealer

Homicides also dropped 12% in Cincinnati in 2004,after five straight years of increases.

Cincinnati  
Enquirer

No mention of the "G" word in either article,but it's interesting that the drop in homicides occurred in the same year that a right to carry law was passed.

[Gonzo]

Sox, you're making the same stupid "link of omission" argument Beet was using, just the other way. Learn that there's more to crime than just guns...

[beet1e]

Gonzo - not trying to prove anything. The article speaks for itself without my having to add anything. It does, however, support what I've said all along with regard to the causes of changing crime levels. Crime in New York and California has gone down - and the reasons? Read the article - it's all in there. And, like I said, it makes no mention of guns. You are free to agree or disagree!

[Schaden]

mmm there is the argument that one of the reasons for the lower crime rate  in the USA is Roe vs Wade - in that abortion on demand has simply removed a large portion of the population most likely to be involved in violent crime.

Not sure if it's true or that I agree with it but an interesting hypothesis.

[Golfer]

Last year,Ohio passed a concealed carry bill.

My Walther PPK and I have been spending lots of time together as well.  

I've been glad that I had it when at a number of 'local drinking establishments' my band has had gigs.  One, (off 161, im sure you know where that is Sox) there was a guy who pulled out a Beretta 92f and set it on the table to intimidate someone else (pre-concealed carry law) last winter.  I didn't go back until I myself was legally armed.

There was also one incident, also with the band we played a house that was straight ouf of deliverence.  The family of 4 that lived there had maybe 1 combined set of teeth.  Animals all over the place, there was a trap door in the deck and down in a deep dark hole is where the outlet was located to plug in our equipment.  Being the always prepared type, I pulled out my penlight and shined down the hole only to see a set of shackles.  Bind the slave type shackle.

They had human skull "decorations" and their basement had a set of katanas which was just too damn clean for their own good.  I didn't trust the place, so I actually repositioned my car in the yard with my spare key in the ignition should a fast getaway be needed.  What made me real suspicious was they paid us in advance...$300.  Now, I've never been paid in advance.  I never ask for nor do I expect to be.  That just got the whole night off to a weird vibe.

Anyways...the stainless .380 makes me feel happy and secure so I am fine with the laws.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Schaden
mmm there is the argument that one of the reasons for the lower crime rate  in the USA is Roe vs Wade - in that abortion on demand has simply removed a large portion of the population most likely to be involved in violent crime.

Not sure if it's true or that I agree with it but an interesting hypothesis.

that's the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

[Swoop]

Beet,

sorry bud but what numpty wrote that wall of bollocks?


"The British police seem to me to have given up altogether on low-level crime"

Rubbish.

The Filth in this country (note for Yanks, Flith = nuther word for Pigs.....at least I capitalise it) are there every time I wanna travel at 5mph over the limit with their condescending looks and the breathalyser equipment but when my bike gets stolen it's "fill out a report and hope your insurance co pays up".

I'll tell you what's wrong with the Rozzers in this country (note for Yanks, Rozzers = yet another word for the Filth), it's that they're mostly recruited from ex-forces meatheads and then told that their carreer depends on their performance.  I've yet to meet a young Copper (note for Yanks, yeah you guessed it) who wouldn't take advantage of an opportunity to get an arrest on his record, hence the bastards (note for Yanks.....oh you probably get that one anyway) look for and chase after the easy ones, anything that requires a bit of thought or effort is beyond them.

My Mother got arrested once.  Wanna know what for?  She bought a fax machine at a car boot sale and it turned out to be stolen.  My Mother has never intentionally committed a crime in her life and is too honest to run away.  They kept her (a woman in her 50s at the time and not in good health) in the cells for 4 hours before an interrogation session lasting another 6.


The British Police are lazy, cynical and just looking for the next easy arrest so they can finally make detective.

Wanna know how I came to this conclusion?

Cos when I was young and stupid I thought I wanted to be one of them.....so I joined the Special Constabulary.  I've seen what goes on from the inside and now have absolutely zero respect for any of em.

And may I also add:  7 minutes of paperword per arrest?  Aw, poor babies.  Maybe if they learned joined up writing it'd come down to 5 minutes.  

As for the crime rate, blame the liberal numpties who send repeat offenders on safari.  

[Gunslinger]

Why don't you guys do what you used to do to criminals????  export them to australia!  

[Swoop]

Send our scum to a nice place like Oz?

Nah, we like the Aussies, after all we've gotta make up for sending em out there in the first place.  No we should send our scum to a country we don't like......like France maybe.

[Sox62]

Originally posted by Gonzo
Sox, you're making the same stupid "link of omission" argument Beet was using, just the other way. Learn that there's more to crime than just guns...

No I am not.


Beetle likes to link guns to crime,and that's not what I'm doing.He had to state that the article never used the "G" word,to bring guns into the mix,even though as he stated the article never did.You just assumed that I was linking guns to crimes.

What I'm trying to point out is that for law abiding citizens,having guns and the right to carry is NOT ABOUT STOPPING CRIME.

It's about ones right to self defense.

[eagl]

Seems like an easy task Swoop...

Just start charging for health care.  Watch the EU immigration wave turn around and start walking the other way.  Damn freeloaders

Seriously, you could give away rocks and people would show up from a thousand miles in every direction to get their free rock, and half would try to steal someone else's free rock.  Get rid of the freebies and the freeloaders go elsewhere.  Spend the money on creating decent basic jobs so stuff like road improvements get done and people can then pay for services they currently get for free.

Um...  There's an loud crowd outside with pitchforks and torches that just drove up in 10 yr old vauxhalls pulling overloaded caravans.  I'll be back in a sec after I see what they want.

[Gonzo]

Originally posted by Sox62
No I am not.


Beetle likes to link guns to crime,and that's not what I'm doing.He had to state that the article never used the "G" word,to bring guns into the mix,even though as he stated the article never did.You just assumed that I was linking guns to crimes.

What I'm trying to point out is that for law abiding citizens,having guns and the right to carry is NOT ABOUT STOPPING CRIME.

It's about ones right to self defense.

Alright, that's legitimate.