h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The statistics for *crime* have varying reliability and what is more they are suspect for one other major reason.

In statistical terms a crime is only a crime once it is followed up by the police. When the son of our Prime Minister Mr Blair was found face down on the pavement what action do you think was taken? When the neices of president Bush were caught under age drinking yet again what action was taken? When Prince Harry and other underage friends were reported to be drinking underage and smoking pot what action was taken?

The crimes of the poor are treated differently than the same crimes committed by the rich and powerful. Furthermore the rich tend to be involved in less visible crimes such as tax fraud insider dealing and the illegal dumping of chemicals into the sea.

I strongly resent the insinuation that poor people are less moral and more prone to criminality.

XANATIC: This is what what BIGERIC had to say;

Maybe if we focussed our thinking on whether gender, sexual preferences and upbringing are predictors of proficiency in a particular line of employment, things might become easier. But then again, some of us may even differ on that point, claiming - for example - that females have the genetic edge when it comes to nurturing, and males have the genetic edge when it comes to musclepower.

My story about Ralph abd his selection techiniques was meant to show the inadequacy and iaccuracy of such theories.

The fact that two compotent but physically weaker women can do a better job than two muscle bound but incompotent men seems to have no effect on the person who responded that maybe the women should be willing to accept half the wage. Lifting the machine was only PART of the job!

Having big muscles were only part of the attributes useful for the job and what is more NOT ESSENTIAL. Likewise with an electronic tuning device a tone deaf person who can put a piano back together would make a better piano tuner than a blind person with perfect pitch but who doesnt know how to use a screw driver properly.

The work place often dicriminates against people who are not physically fit men by structuring its work in such a way that only strong physically fit men can do many of the jobs. Who loses out in these situations?

EVERYONE.

Not just the physically less able or weaker bodied women. Society as a whole. Many jobs have an essential element of skill and attention to detail but by making physical attributes an obstacle in the path to work we lose out on the skills that are held by groups who are effectivly barred from the work place. With a little sensible restructuring it would be possible to utilise the skills that many people hold and could use to all our advantages. Instead we make it difficult for them to join the work force and more likely to be sitting at home claiming benefits, their talents wasted.

"I strongly resent the insinuation that poor people are less moral and more prone to criminality."

I agree with everything you said. It's important to realise that the statistical fact that certain sorts of crime are disproportionately committed by poor people doesn't mean that they are less moral or more prone to criminality. I also agree with you that the really big crimes (like declaring war, polluting the environment, ripping off pension funds, etc.) are committed by the rich.

I think the statistics reflect the situations that people find themselves in. Rich people don't hold up corner shops because firstly they don't need the money, and secondly if they are really hellbent on criminal activity they can rip off the pension fund instead and get thousands of times more money from it.

"Rich people don't hold up corner shops"

Oh year? What about Winona Ryder - crime is only partially explained by need, sometimes people commit crime because they can, or because they are sociopathic or because they are bored, or....

...you get the picture.

Being poor or rich does not influence any of these things.

"What about Winona Ryder" - fair point. I didn't mean to say that no rich people indulge in such things, just less of them.

It's a shame we don't have the statistics for this.