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

Unless the "visible" component of crime increases or decreases significantly with age, will the proportion of "visible" to "invisible" change? I suspect, although I have no evidence for this, that when kids are younger more of their crimes are "invisible" which reinforces my point that maturity may be a factor. Is that what you're alluding to?

It would make sense that younger people are not reflected in official statistics. I think more effort is made to avoid criminalising young people. Whereas a 14 year old committing a minor offence may well just receive a telling off, an 18 year old may well be charged. Of course the 18 yr old may have received repeated cautions when younger which would influence matters.

Do you think this is the right approach? Or should we treat every offence equally, regardless of age? Will the sharp shock of a conviction at a young age act as a deterrant, or will being labelled so early lead to a higher likelihood of further offending?

I think by invisible you mean unrecorded and by visible i mean those which people can see and happen in the public domain. Crimes such as loiterring, disturbing the peace, criminal damage, shop lifting (theft) and such like.

Crimes such as speeding happen so routinely that they hardly figurein some peoples minds as crimes. No one wil report a motoring offence that causes no damage or direct inconvinienceto them but a smashed window or an item of clothing being shp lifted will be more likely to be recorded by the ownersof the damaged or stolen property.

Police also give adults a ticking off for minor trangressions. This can be for many reasons such as affinity with the offender, time it happensin relation to the end of the officers shift, other things happening at the time ie. more serious crimes or een a genuine attempt at softly softly policing.





"Do you think this is the right approach? Or should we treat every offence equally, regardless of age? Will the sharp shock of a conviction at a young age act as a deterrant, or will being labelled so early lead to a higher likelihood of further offending?

I think thisis a simplistic way of looking at what policing and sentencing do to people.

As you have pointed out several factors are at work when someone chooses to commit a crime. The consequences of being caught are some way down the pecking order of importance in the minds of some young people. Way behind deliberations about getting caught which comes in way after thrill seeking, gaining kudos and asenseof acheivement at breaking the rules (believe me for those who feel they will never make anything of their life life destruction is a just as effective way of making their mark on the world as anything edifying or creative).

As with adults self discipline is an important than any extemporanious sanction imposed from outside its just *more* important the younger people are.

What is a criminal record to a youngester? The law like warnings of fag packets is better understoodby adults because it is written by adults. Mark Thomas once said i"If you want young peopl eto stop smoking you have to make the warnings relevantto them: Smoking will give you fat ankles, for girls and for boys: Smoking will make your willy smaller."

Custodial, fines, suspended sentence...the reactions of most young people are

Id like to see three ranks youth provision which were comparitively speaking lavish, standard and a bit crap. Your sentence for being cautioned would be demotion one level and two for a conviction witht he demotion lasting 6 months. Being able to access the best youth clubs and sports facilities or conversly not being able to and only allowed on educational trips at school and not the end of year jollies would be something they could easily relate to.

What tangible rewards do we as a society offer as an incentive to learn the lessons we want them to learn. Instead we offer inconsitent, long winded and confussing punishments that often amount to nothing noticeable happening to them.




Anyway we are drifitng way from the point I was trying to make, which is that differences in the recordingor crimes across the genderor generational gaps arenot necessarily true indicatorsof the actual incidence of law breaking.

A dodgy deal or some shapr practice by an accountant can be worth as much as a thousand broken windows but how can you compare the actionsofpeople who are learning abou the world with someone who has been specifically trained to understand tax laws. Crimes born of frustration wrecklessness with carefully planned on going schemes to defraud the public purse of millions?

Staying with fraud and broken windows. Should someone be charged for each window or for each separate building. With fraud for the one dodgy tax year, each penny, each day that the fraud continued or base the severity of the charges and judgement on the overall amount.

These sorts of factors also influence the figures for age distribution of crimes.

Strictly speaking, I don't think motoring offences are technically "crimes". You don't have to declare speeding points or suchlike on CRBs (do you?)

Yes, we've wandered away from the gender issue but no matter, this is interesting too.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I sometimes feel that as a society we bloody hate kids. We marginalise them, treat them like pets and generalise to an appalling degree then act all surprised when some turn 18 and don't know how to act like an adult.

Your suggestions for youth policy remind me of current educational thinking of rewarding good behaviour and minimalising reactions to bad behaviour. I can see the reasoning there, but I come from the standpoint that good behaviour should be expected and be a reward in itself. Taking away priviledges is certainly effective, but as you point out, they have to be granted in the first place.

What priviledges would you like to see granted to all youths tomorrow?

I personally think short, sharp punishments are more effective with kids. When you're young, a month seems like forever so putting someone on an ASBO for 6 months is counter-productive. Kids have to see an end to punishment. Hah! Maybe that's why corporal punishment wasn't all bad. Certainly when I was at school, we always opted for it when given the choice as it meant the whole thing was over & done with quickly as opposed to a week of detention.

Lastly, I think fraudsters and the like are treated far more harshly than violent criminals. Look at the recent case of the missing canoeist. She got 8 years for a first offence. Compare that with a story I saw recently of a guy who smashed a beer glass into the face of someone, leaving them permanently disfigured. He got a Community Service order!! Certainly at the extreme end of the scale (think Guinness), it seems lenient but such cases are few and far between and arguably imprisonment even for a short time impacts more heavily on such people.

Dont know about parking offences but certainly some of the "dangerous driving" stuff are clased as crimes but why not all of it.

Why rent we pressing for ASBOs for people who flagrantly dont give a flying ---- for rules and laws about blocking drives, parking too close to zebra crossings, speeding... oh because they're adults and we havent been conditioned to be afraid of them.




As for the rewards for good behaviour. How about free driving lessons, internet access and when people do something wrong they get such things taken away or restricted. Pubs are closing ten tot he dozen why not make them places accessible to the wider community and youths at a discounted rateand take away the free discounted rates if people arent willing to get into line.



Ive already mentioned quality trips. Today I see too many people working ridiculous hours to earn the money for materialitemsandflashy lifestyles but not spending holidays and time at home with their kids. They send their kids out or leave them to their own devices with enough money to get themselves pissed to high heaven and worse. All because they are chasing the vain hope of giving their kids "a better life" when they are actually missing out on important life lessons.


one love

Driving lessons are a good idea. There's a fair old section of angry young men whose behaviour starts changing upon taking ownership of their first car. Makes ripping wing mirrors off less attractive I suppose.

For official Secrets Act you have to report speeding offences, but not for CRB.

Big clamp down on parking illegally just started here - that means on zig-zags and near schools - be interesting to hear how it goes.

I think we don't give ASBOs for motoring offences only because fines can be imposed on drivers far more easily and practicably. How do you fine a 14 year old? I'm sure if you could find a way to fine kids the govt would grab your arm off.

Free driving lessons Enabling, educational, contributing to road safety - what's not to like? Except maybe the tree-huggers won't like the idea of encouraging car use at a time when we're all supposed to be using public transport.

Free internet access? I confess to not knowing just how many kids can't get onto the internet anyway. But, if it were tied into the idea of converting pubs to youth centres then, yes. As you know, I've been involved in something similar before so I know some of the pitfalls. I don't think you can charge kids to get in but you can control access through behaviour. If the centre is perceived as desirable enough in itself, kids will adjust their behaviour.

But - who runs these centres? Please God no, not Social Workers. It would take years to get through the committee stage for a start. Charities are a no-no as these *usually* turn out to be religions who use the centres for their own purposes. The private sector? No, because with the best will in the world, chasing a profit takes precedence over rules. Where this is most likely to work and indeed has worked in the past is through public-spirited individuals who do it through a desire to improve their own communities.

I can see a way to fund it. If the drinks companies could be forced to donate a percentage of profits to a central fund, this could easily pay the running costs.

It's a really good idea but the problem of who exactly runs it is difficult.

I do find youth centres a bit unlikely as a crime solution. Would guess that those with criminal inclinations might find them a bit lame.

Those with strong inclinations, probably yes.
Those with weaker?

The easily led & influenced might benefit.

They take their character from who leads them. There are many examples of ex-boxers and even ex-offenders running successful centres.

I came across some data regarding age & gender of offenders. In graph form, it's pretty predictable. Both sexes show a steep rise at first, peaking for girls at 16 and for boys at 19, before declining steadily at about the same rate. One anomaly stands out though. Both sexes interrupt the decline in offences to show a small peak at 25. The size of the peak is identical, if proportionate.

Anybody any suggestions why both women and men briefly commit more crimes at the age of 25?

Got a link?

That's really interesting. Is it for one particular kind of crime, or all of them?

Rather infuriatingly, it's a graph from an OU textbook that is unattributed. All I have is a title: Offenders as %ge of population by gender & age (2000). They're not huge peaks, but certainly clear ones.

Does the book give any reasons, or do you think this is a QI thread?

No - no reason given. Which is why I'm posing the question to the great & the good of Hootoo

Asking in the wrong place, obviously.

Could it be shoplifting to provide for the young family ?

Have you found out yet, SWL?

Nope