So were they "cooking the books" prior to 1998? Do you have access to the Report from the Inspector of the Constabulary?
The inspector of constabulary reports are here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/annual.htmCan't find anything like Newsmax's quotes in them.
In fact, a google search of their quotation about murder rates turned up only the Newsmax article itself, yet a google search of a quote inside one of the inspectors reports, a pdf file, pointed straight back to that file.
In other words, if what Newsmax was quoting was true, Google would probably have found the original report.
The report I think they are reffering to can be found at
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/otr00.htmIt does point out the under reportng of crime that used to go on, for example if there was damage to a door lock, police would often record the offence as vandalism rather than attempted burgulary. Same for damage to windows etc.
However, I can't see anything of the sort relating to homicide, and their quote is most definately not in the report.
Incidentally, weren't the "rising" figures for violent crime in Britain used to show how banning guns
increased violent crime? And now this report is admitting the truth, that the "rise" was purely down to improved recording by the police. The British Crime Survey, which is a more accurate guide to crime figures, shows violent crime falling in Britain throughout the late ninties.
"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition."
I very much doubt it's ever been true, in recent times.
For one thing, there hasn't been a large jump in murder figures, that moving to an initial classification system (which is certainly what's in place now) from one based on trial outcomes, would have caused.
Secondly, murder cases usually take a long time in Britain, with the defence always trying to delay as long as possible. The results of a trial would often not show up in figures until two years later.
Thirdly, does this sound plausible to you:
Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all.
A woman found beaten to death outside a bar, three suspects, no crime recorded? That's simply too far fetched.
And how would it count as a 3 person homicide in America? Homicide stats consist primarily of the number of victims, not the number of assailants.
Well, then, wouldn't one expect Britain's crime rate to decrease during the passage of this particular generation's active "crime committing" years?
Normally, yes. But those years were very hard in Britain, which was left paying back all it's own war debt's, plus Russia's.
Well, the post-war era in the US was wild. The Volstead Act and Prohibition (ah.. Prohibition... you see where that stuff leads, eh? ) merely added fuel to the fire of the "Roaring Twenties".
Exactly. There are perfectly valid reasons why America should have had a substantially higher murder rate than Britain then, which sort of makes the claim that the two countries are "converging" naturall. The question should be why they haven't converged yet.
Nonetheless, trend lines show you guys doing well in catching up to us in overall violence.
They show we've passed you in overall violence. Not suprising, when we have less police, lowever conviction rates, less prison time, more criminals on the streets.
The government brought in a mandatory 3 year sentence (1.5 years served, 50% remission) for domestic burgulars convicted for a
third time. Judges fought for an opt out if they felt 3 years was too long, and got it. In the several years it's been in force, less than 10 repeat burgulars have got a 3 year sentence.
For Nashwan, it merely shows that not even the US is keeping them in jail long enough, so don't feel too badly about England's "enlightened" approach. Our "unenlightened" approach isn't doing much better.
It's a hell of a lot better than here, believe me.
Two days ago my car was broken in to, outside my house. I dashed outside, the thieves ran before I got there (frightened by the alarm). The police noted the crime, but said they were too busy to send anyone out to investigate it.
Yesterday, some hooligans placed a firework launch tube in the ground, and aimed it at my neighbours car. (which was in line with his house) The firework exploded on the wall, setting several car alarms off, and rattling the windows of every house in the street (It was a very big rocket). Again, the police were too busy to come out and investigate, even though a passerby had good descriptions of those involved.
As an example, New York has a slightly lower population than London, and a lower crime rate. It has 48,000 police officers and civilian support staff. London has 38,000, despite the fact the Met police have to carry out tasks that are carried out by the FBI, Secret Service etc in New York.
