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

Ten years of "Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime." has got us where, exactly?

About the same place "Education, Education, Education" has got us.

Face it chaps, milions upon hundreds of millions has been spent on the touchy-feely approach and crime has got worse. Gun crime is up 400% for one indicator alone.

An efficient police force will take away criminal's belief that they won't get caught.
An efficient Court system will make sure they actually get prosecuted.
And a prison regime so horrific that the consequences of crime become unthinkable will make sure re-offending falls.
And for those too thick to get the message, life in jail.

Since when did we have ten years of 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'? That turned out to be empty sloganeering. New Labour went the easy route of being tough on the causERS of crime. They lacked the guts to be radical, being petrified of Middle England received wisdom.

Pedro <>

At what point does personal responsibility start?

Historically, there have always been poverty-struck areas and poverty in general across the board. Not everyone resorts to crime. In fact, I daresay the majority don't. What's the difference between two people with the same opportunities (or lack of), where one becomes a criminal and one doesn't? We see it happening within families ffs.

Becoming a criminal is a personal life choice. Where parasites choose of their own free will to attack society, they deserve the harshest penalties.

If every single inhabitant of Moss-side (say) were a criminal, you would have a valid point that environment creates criminals. But they don't, so you don't.

>>At what point does personal responsibility start?

So what you're saying is that once people commit a crime, they should be held personably responsible? That's both obvious and easy. But what are we going to do to stop the crimes in the first place? Merely punishing people after the fact is an abbrogation of our responsibilities as a society.

>>If every single inhabitant of Moss-side (say) were a criminal, you would have a valid point that environment creates criminals. But they don't, so you don't.

Newtonian physics works well for snooker balls; cause and effect are easy to see. People and their society are far more complex than that.

<>

Taking this literally for a second, you seem to say you'd agree if it was the case. How about 98%? I think we'd still agree. If it was 80%, then probably still yeah.

But if it's 5% as opposed to a national average* of 2.5%, what then? If someone from a certain area/background has double the average change of going to jail, would you still say that area/background is a factor in their behaviour? It's beyond any doubt that social conditions have an impact. It's also beyond any doubt that that's the only influence on people's development, so nobody (even mischieviously) should expect a 100% correlation.

Saw this article in today's Grauniad (It's vaguely relevant to, erm, every thread on the Forum). It's about increasing wealth and its social effects, really very interesting. And it's not mindless liberalism either.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2156988,00.html

One line that interested me - 'what counts in terms of happiness is not how much you earn, but how much you earn relative to everybody else.'

So just because we're better off than before, for some people it merely allows them a better look at how little, comparatively, they have themselves. Continuing economic inequality, IMHO, is a factor in the rise of criminal behaviour. New Labour has presided over this rising inequality, so if they say tough on the causes of crime, they're lying s. I think we're getting confused slightly. Me 'n' Ed are talking about the causes of crime, you're talking about crime. Do keep up


*made-up figures alert

The causes of crime are criminals.

That certain areas have higher proportions of criminals is down to two things:

1) Better policing catching more criminals and bumping the figures and,

2) Overcrowding. Too many people living cheek by jowl.

It really isn't very difficult. This was recognised in the 50's with the demolition of the Gorbals.

I've said it already, crime will continue to rise with population: specifically population density. In over-populated areas, the only safeguard is rugged policing, pitiless judges and a draconian penal system.

Someone said earlier, criminals don't think of consequences. That's correct in that the consequences are of no consequence. Exactly how many grannies do you have to mug to get a jail term instead of an expenses-paid trip to Africa?*

*You were correct Ed. Torremelinos is so passe. Africa's the in-place dontcha know according to Blicky.

<>

TWO things account for the differences in crime levels between (say) Easterhouse and Newton Mearns? And neither of them involve socio-economic thingies? Try harder mate, your standards are slipping. That's simplistic to the point of meaningless.

'course, Sociology and Criminology are both Marxist plots. We needn't bother looking at what thay say about the topic. Might as well just make up our own pet theories.

Speaking of overcrowding, I've just come across this:
http://metropolis.co.jp/tokyo/598/lastword.asp

It seems that the spacious nation of Japan has one of the world's lowest crime rates. Their criminal justice system has historically been based on rehabilitation and welfare. A spate of headline-hitting juvenile crimes is pushing them down the punitive route.

Yeah, yeah, yeah - Easterhouse & Kensington.

What that fails to address is that Easterhouse is largely council housing where the absolute dregs live. Anyone with any aspirations gets the hell out. Those that are left are there through choice. Certainly, offer them a house in Newton Mearns and they'll take it. They'll then proceed to drag the surrounding area down to their level.

Time after time we see councils redeveloping areas of urban deprivation. Time after time we see them return to their previous state with barely a blip in the crime figures. You can change the surroundings, but not the people.

To escape the vicious circle, people have to want to. Unfortunately, our socal & economic policies preclude that. Why work for minimum wage when benefits provide the equivalent with the added bonus that you can sit on your ass all day?

Criminals are lazy in that they want the short-cut to material wealth. Faced with a choice of working & saving for a new telly or nicking one, they'll nick one. And that applies across the spectrum from a teenage mugger to a city banker on the take.

>>You can change the surroundings, but not the people.

You've hit upon an interesting theory there. It follows that if crime rates are increasing, people must be getting worse.

Any theories on why?

If people can't be changes, it must be environmental. Surely?

And why aren't you or I getting worse?

It's getting worse 'cos crime increasingly pays. Sentences are ineffectual, offenders never serve the full sentence anyway. The chances of being caught are negligible. And a criminal culture perpetuates. If dad's a criminal, little Timmy & Tommy are brought up witnessing the laughable nature of the justice system and inherit their father's contempt for society.

Has any research been done into the criminality of criminal's offspring?

We are certainly led to believe that irresponsible behaviour by absent fathers influences youth crime.

My, my, your on fine form today, SWL.

So lets get this straight the hig density low crime that we alegedly enjoyed in the past has everything to do with sentences that are "never" served and crime paying in this day and age.

Recently I went to a museum and saw exhibits about life in the blitz the stark thing I noticed is that there was nothing Id steal from any of the houses. A big unweidy wireless and a mangle that apart from a few uninspiring nik-naks and the day to day essentials were all the houses contained.

Im not diametrically opposed to consumerism but we have set ourselves up these days in Alladins caves compared tot he homes of the past.

You're wrong about criminals creating crimes its laws that create crime...well we are both wrong its a mixture of things but i said that to show how hyperbole can often lead to a right sounding but misgudely very wrong answer.

People steal from their loved ones when they have a big drive to do so like extreme peer prssure or a serious drug habit, but we'll steal from people we know at the drop of a hat. if you think your not complicit in crime have a think about whther you know exactly where all the metals and minerals in your mobile phones and other gadgets come from and if you're sure they didnt come through an illegal route like a mine run on forced labout. We are all criminals its just that we rank some crimes as worse than others not on moral or structured ethics but on how many of us do it and who we do it to.

Stiffing the man over a parking fine; that's not a real crime in most people's eyes and tax avoidance; that is just being prudent if you can find the right loophole to disingenuously exploit. For most stolen goods there is a buyer and from what Ive seen the growing if not number one place that stolen goods pass through are the growing numbers of pawnbrokers on the highstreets.

Our nation as we speak is waging two wars of dubious legality and we are shown a total disregard for the law in making promises of violence for minor actions by children by people like you. You're not going to pretend you did'nt say you'd go after any one and attempt to physically harm them if the scratched your car.

Were you always that violent or did you just pick that up from teh military environment you lived in?

<>

Speak for yourself.

Two people have tried to stab me in my life. One was an adult who got a bit distracted by a housebrick. The other was an 8 yr old child. With the first I used violence, with the second I held on to him until the police arrived. The trick is using the means appropriate. If a gang of 8 yr olds scratched my car, I wouldn't use a baseball bat. If a gang of older teenagers did the same, bet your ass I'd use the bat.

Anyway, ttfn. No interweb for a week.

sorry big typo!

Obviously I meant to write, "we'll steal from people we dont know at the drop of a hat" in contrast to people generally needing a serious motive to steal from people they are close to ie drug addicts and bullied/eager to conform children as I mentioned.

See the thing is violence is so rarely an effective deterant or punishment.

In places where they have stiffer sentencing including corporal and capital punishment there isnt any noticeable difference between offending rates when you compare places with roughly comparable sets of laws and social circumstances.

one love

<<"1) The Police should tear up the bulk of their paperwork and go back to catching criminals. I don't want a touchy-feely Police Force (not Service), who are scared of offending people and not catching offenders. I want the Police to be absolute bastards. They've got an intrinsic leaning to it anyway. Let's have criminals genuinely in fear of the Police instead of sniggering at them.">>

If they didn't do the paperwork, had would anyone get convicted? Surely the paperwork is necessary for evidence?

OK...so let's assuming that crime increasingly pays, criminals are unlikely to be caught, and if they do they're let off with lenient sentences.

Why aren't you or I committing crimes? We'd be stupid not to, surely?

Are we innately good people? Or is it that our life circumstances are different to those of offenders?

We're not doing it because we have more to lose.

Social conditions do cause crime - however there are also people who are inherently selfish, or greedy, or bullies.

More prisons is not the answer - appropriate sentencing is - there are people who have to be locked up for the good of society - lock 'em up and throw away the key. There are people the world is better off without - hang 'em.

However the majority of the people in prison should not be there, they are either incapable of dealing with society and the rules of society, or they have a mental disability.

Money needs to be invested in policing, education and social care, but when someone suggests this it far easier to sneer at him because he went to Eton rather than Fettes, than listen to what he has to say.

As long as social care is seen as a politcal issue the prison population will continue to rise.

Oh. no disagreement whatsoever that some people should be in prison. For life? A few. But obviously no civilised country can tolerate hanging.

But that, I fear, is a whole separate debate.